This is not dispute you point. since I agree that asking for proof of eligibility constitutionally legit. This reply is only in reference "the FIRST time this issue was ever propagated!".
He is not the first candidate or President or Presidential Candidate to have his eligibility questioned. However, he is the first elected president to have his eligibility questioned.
Thanks.....we "slow readers" need a history lesson every now and then....so do the "fast" ones, it appears.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 12-30-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:22 PM
Jan 19th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie's spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.
Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?"
In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have "political implications" for the next presidential election "that we simply cannot have."
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault, Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama birth in the state archives that he wants to make public.
Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.
"It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," Abercrombie said.
For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president's birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.
"If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama's birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president," he said.
So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.
WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.
WND has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.
Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.
Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.
WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby's birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.
Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama's birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.
WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.
IP: Logged
09:33 AM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
But... I thought they showed us a picture of it once? It must have just fallen off someones desk and got swept under a desk somewhere.
It's like that check I sent in for rent a few months back. The landlord never got it so I sent a new one and the one I sent before showed up about a week after the new one arrived. The first one just got lost in the cracks somewhere.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 01-19-2011).]
Seriously that source "WND" is garbage. Yet another C&P from their site to an article that has a sensational headline but no facts in the article itself, just conjecture and guessing. I thought your Newsmax C&P articles were bad but I actually think these are worse.
Plus the issue of Obama not being eligible for the Presidency? Really, you don't think the Republicans would have sniffed that one out a while back and done something? Even the much revered Bill O'Reilly has said it's a non-issue. Everything is not a conspiracy!!!
IP: Logged
10:49 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
What are you whinning about? I have always stated that I believe he is an American citizen, birth certificate or not. I just find these articles interesting. His mother IS an American citizen and that is good enough for me. Why would you care anyway? You aren't an American citizen yourself.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-19-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:54 AM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7501 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Why doesn't he just have a fake birth certificate (if needed) made up and show that to everyone? The fact that the records are 'sealed' makes it all very suspect.
He could have ending this issue a long time ago, but something is fishy in that ocean...
IP: Logged
10:58 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Why doesn't he just have a fake birth certificate (if needed) made up and show that to everyone? The fact that the records are 'sealed' makes it all very suspect.
He could have ending this issue a long time ago, but something is fishy in that ocean...
Because the Chicago Mob that put him in office forgot about this.. and it was too late to make a new one while not making a scene (or making some people "disappear")
IP: Logged
11:41 AM
Jan 20th, 2011
kevin Member
Posts: 2722 From: Elk Grove, CA USA Registered: Jan 2000
Why doesn't he just have a fake birth certificate (if needed) made up and show that to everyone? The fact that the records are 'sealed' makes it all very suspect.
He could have ending this issue a long time ago, but something is fishy in that ocean...
Hell! Why didn't I (or anybody else) think of this before? All Obama has to do purchase a fake birth certificate from an illegal alien at the Mexico border? Hell, it will only cost him, what $50, bucks?
Cordially, Kevin
p.s. This new fake birth certificate would probably be of better quality than the original!
IP: Logged
03:42 PM
Jan 22nd, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
HONOLULU - A privacy law that shields birth certificates has prompted Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie to abandon efforts to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was born outside Hawaii, his office says.
State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that privacy laws bar him from disclosing an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Friday.
"There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document," said Dela Cruz. "Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president."
Chicago Tribune / MCT The Obama campaign released this copy of his certification of live birth in response to claims by conspiracy theorists that the president wasn't born in the United States.Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama's parents and knew him as a child, launched an investigation last month into whether he can release more information about the president's Aug. 4, 1961 birth. The governor said at the time he was bothered by people who questioned Obama's birthplace for political reasons.
But Abercrombie's attempt reached a dead end when Louie told him the law restricted his options.
Hawaii's privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a tangible interest.
So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there's no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country.
Sponsored LinksHawaii's health director said in 2008 and 2009 that she had seen and verified Obama's original vital records, and birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers were published within days of Obama's birth at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.
Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo again confirmed Friday that Obama's name is found in its alphabetical list of names of people born in Hawaii, maintained in bound copies available for public view.
That information, called index data, shows a listing for "Obama II, Barack Hussein, Male," according to the department's website.
"The index is just to say who has their records within the department. That's an indication," Okubo said. "I can't talk about anyone's records."
The Obama campaign issued a certificate of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's birth date, city and name, along with his parents' names and races.
Because the Chicago Mob that put him in office forgot about this..
It was said by his detractors that the "Chicago Mob" put JFK in office...and history shows that the efforts to remove him from office (and they were many if you recall) proved fruitless as well.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:57 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
An interview with newly elected Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie that addressed Barack Obama's presidential eligibility has prompted two opposing interpretations by legacy media – one insisting the governor has resolved the issue and the other concluding he effectively has admitted he can't find the long-form birth certificate that would help put the controversy to rest.
The New York Daily News apparently found the interview published Tuesday by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reason to declare final victory over "conspiracy theorists," but ABC News featured a story on its website pointing out Abercrombie has not delivered the promised proof.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
After WND's report of the interview Wednesday – emphasizing Abercrombie tacitly has admitted an investigation he first mentioned in December has failed to produce a birth certificate – the New York Daily News declared in its headline, "Record of President Obama's birth in 1961 is 'in the archives': Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie."
The Daily News lead paragraph stated: "Officials in Hawaii have tracked down papers indicating that President Obama was indeed born in their state, according to its new governor."
But the New York paper acknowledged that Abercrombie has not yet presented the proof to the public, stating "he again promised he would do 'what I can do' to publicly verify that records show Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen of the United States, making him eligible to be President."
The ABC News report, meanwhile, noted, "Despite his assurance to end the controversy, the governor has yet to present the document."
ABC led its story with, "Officials in Hawaii say they have located President Obama's birth certificate indicating that he was born in the state, but have yet to produce the document at the heart of a long-simmering conspiracy theory."
Other reports noted, however, that Abercrombie referred only to having found an unspecified notation of the birth, not a long-form birth certificate.
The wire service United Press International ran a story largely based on the ABC News account that stated, "Hawaii's governor says President Obama's birth certificate is 'written down' in state archives, but conspiracy theorists say they have yet to see it."
WND has reported that according to Hawaii law at the time, a notation made in the archives and newspaper announcements in Honolulu's two biggest newspapers could have been triggered simply by grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham appearing in-person to register Obama as a Hawaiian birth, even if he was born elsewhere.
WND also has reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither of Honolulu's hospitals, Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center, have any record that Obama was born in their facility.
WND has asked Abercrombie's spokeswoman in Honolulu, Donalyn Dela Cruz, for an interview with the governor, but she has not responded.
On the eve of the 2008 presidential election, the then-director of Hawaii's Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement that she had "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
In a separate statement, Fukino said, "I and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
But as WND reported, neither statement specified what the "record" or "certificate" says or answered questions raised over the issue. Also, the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the short-form Certification of Live Birth posted on the Internet initially by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.
'Can't produce the vital document'
Across the Atlantic, the Daily Mail of London adopted the storyline reported first by WND and followed by ABC News.
The London paper's headline said: "Hawaii governor claims record of Obama's birth 'exists in archives' but can't produce the vital document."
"Pressure was mounting on Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie today amid increasing confusion over whether President Obama was born there," the paper reported.
The Daily Mail pointed out that while Abercrombie stated evidence of Obama's birth "actually exists in the archives, written down," it nevertheless "became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate."
In the Star-Advertiser interview, the London paper said, Abercrombie "suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health."
Back in Hawaii, a columnist writing in an award-winning, independent online news and opinion journal founded by veteran Hawaii reporters asserted Abercrombie "has utterly failed to prove Obama was born in Hawaii."
Robert Paul Reyes, in the Hawaii Reporter, said Hawaii officials "need to track down only one document: The original Obama birth certificate with the name of the hospital and the doctor, his or her signature."
"How difficult can it be for the governor of Hawaii to track down one document? He can dispatch hundreds of state employees to search for Obama's birth certificate," the columnist said.
Reyes argued that "to state that 'officials have tracked down papers indicating that President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii' falls woefully short of proving that Obama is a citizen of the United States."
He concluded: "Show us the money! Show us the birth certificate!"
An NBC television affiliate in Tyler, Texas, east of Dallas, featured WND's report in a regular opinion segment in which its news anchor interacts with a local talk-radio host.
KETK-TV news anchor Bob Brackeen said in the segment Thursday that "there seems to be a glitch or two about what the governor was saying," adding Abercrombie gave "a pretty vague response" to a question about the birth certificate.
KTBB talk-radio host Garth Maier agreed, saying Abercrombie's explanation that a record of Obama's birth is "written down in the archives somewhere" sounds "pretty vague about actual evidence."
See the KETK segment:
Maier reported that he had asked his radio listeners to respond to the question, "Do you have doubts President Obama was born in Hawaii?"
One listener, heard in a recording, said, "I didn't have doubts before, but now that the governor of the state can't produce a document of this nature, I really have my doubts now."
Brackeen wrapped up the segment recalling, "Garth, as you mentioned last hour, this wasn't 1861 here, this was 1961, in a hospital."
Maier concluded: "You would think it would take the governor less than a day to get his attorney general dispatched and his director of the health department and say, 'Listen, just go get the form, and we'll get this all settled.'"
Surge of doubt
As WND reported, Abercrombie, 72, a former member of the U.S. House, gave a flurry of high-profile media interviews last month condemning "birthers" who question Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
In an apparent effort to quell a surge of public doubt – with some polls showing half of Americans doubting Obama's story – Abercrombie promised he would try to release additional records on Obama from his state's Department of Health vault.
Obama supporter and declared "enemy" of "birthers" Chris Matthews, the anchor of the nightly MSNBC "Hardball" program, devoted a segment to the controversy Dec. 27, noting a New York Times/CBS News poll that said only 58 percent of Americans were willing to say Obama was born in Hawaii as the president claims.
See the MSNBC segment: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Matthews displayed a copy of a Hawaii long-form birth certificate from 1961 and compared it with a copy of the Certification of Live Birth that was posted on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign, when the issue first was raised.
"Why has the president himself not demanded that they put out the initial documents?" Matthews asked his guests, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page and David Corn of Mother Jones magazine.
"What do you about those other 43 percent," who either don't believe Obama was born in Hawaii or don't know, the host asked. "Why isn't Abercrombie on the right trail here, to at least go to the [23 percent who aren't sure]. Obviously the nut cases on the far right who hate this guy aren't going to ever admit that you're right. But why not get to the people who are confused?"
Matthews said that what is new is "the mere fact that a newly elected governor of Hawaii, [Obama's] home state – and it is his home state, I completely agree with you – has begun this effort."
"Now everybody on the right knows he's begun the effort. Every newspaper person knows it. You guys know it. I know it," Matthews continued. "So we're going to be peering out of the corner of our eye in the next couple of weeks, 'How's Abercrombie doing on his expedition to find the original document, with signatures all over it, like all our birth certificates, like this one here that somebody who was born one day before – has all kinds of signatures on it, it's an actual Photostat?"
Matthews was referring to the hospital-generated birth certificates of twin daughters born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapiolani hospital on Aug. 5, 1961, one day after the purported day of Obama's birth at the same hospital. The Nordyke birth certificates were featured in a July 2009 WND report.
The Nordykes' certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, the name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby, the exact time of birth and the weight of the baby at birth.
"Don't we want to know if he can find it?" Matthews continued in his Dec. 27 segment. "I don't understand why the governor just doesn't say, 'Snap it off, whoever's over there in the department of records, send me a copy right now.' And why doesn't the president just say, 'Send me a copy right now'. Why doesn't (press secretary Robert) Gibbs and (senior adviser David) Axelrod say, 'Let's just get this crappy story dead.'"
Matthews' guests insisted the president doesn't care.
An incredulous Matthews responded: "The president doesn't care that 43 percent of the country doesn't think he's an American?"
This is what I found interesting in the above article: " the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the short-form Certification of Live Birth posted on the Internet initially by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:14 AM
PFF
System Bot
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9111 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Unbelivable. All this about a birth certificate. For what?
Let's just say he doesn't have one or hasn't been born in the country, then what?
The United States government is now suddenly defunct? All the laws made in the last 2 years are null and void? No Obama care? I get all the income tax I paid for the last 2 years back in my hands?
Well?
So .....what are you going to do about it? Feel you are helping the uninformed? To do what?
Vote? LOL.
bit@# and moan on message boards?
That's what 99% are doing.
Why, because you are powerless to change the global winds.
Keep bit@#ing and stay angry....for no other reason than to keep bit@#ing and to stay angry!
[This message has been edited by jetman (edited 01-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:21 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Unbelivable. All this about a birth certificate. For what?
Let's just say he doesn't have one or hasn't been born in the country, then what?
The United States government is now suddenly defunct? All the laws made in the last 2 years are null and void? No Obama care? I get all the income tax I paid for the last 2 years back in my hands?
Well?
So .....what are you going to do about it? Feel you are helping the uninformed? To do what?
Vote? LOL.
bit@# and moan on message boards?
That's what 99% are doing.
Why, because you are powerless to change the global winds.
Keep bit@#ing and stay angry....for no other reason than to keep bit@#ing and to stay angry!
1. Biden would be president. 2. Any bills signed into law by Obama would be revisited. 3. No you don't get your taxes back.
Simple, huh?
Forget Obama for a moment. Do you think it matters if a candidate for president is eligible to become president? What do you consider valid proof?
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:36 PM
Jan 24th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Top-rated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on Friday questioned why new Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie has not gotten support from the White House in his efforts to resolve the doubts of so-called “birthers” about Barack Obama’s place of birth.
Limbaugh also says he finds it “stunning” that Abercrombie still can’t prove Obama was born in Hawaii as he maintains.
Abercrombie has stated that he wants to put to rest assertions that Obama may not have been born in the United States and therefore is not eligible to serve as president, assertions fueled by Obama’s lack of a hospital-generated birth certificate.
But Limbaugh noted that Abercrombie now says “a hospital generated birth certificate for Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.
“Remember, he started out, the whole reason for doing this, was to get it off the table so it wasn’t an election issue for 2014.
“But he’s done the exact opposite now. How many of us could get away with saying, ‘Yeah, there’s a little notation somewhere there in the archives, but we can’t find the birth certificate.’”
Limbaugh compared Abercrombie’s vow to demonstrate Obama’s Hawaii birth before he knew he could produce the birth certificate to a lawyer granting immunity to someone before knowing what the person was going to say.
Regarding Obama’s supposed Hawaii birth, “they still can’t prove it,” Limbaugh said.
“It is stunning to me. The governor of Hawaii vowed when he took office that he would do his best to end the debate over Obama’s birth, which began in 2008 during the presidential campaign.
“Where’s the president on this? Where’s the president’s vow to end the debate over his birth. We’re going on four years on this. It keeps intensifying.
“Where’s Obama? Where’s the White House? Is this guy flying alone? Neil Abercrombie on his own on this? So much of this is difficult to fathom, to believe.”
IP: Logged
10:11 AM
Jan 27th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Abercrombie Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii. Neil Abercombie, new Govenor of Hawaii, has admitted to his close friend Mike Evans, a reporter, that there are no records of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
IP: Logged
10:37 AM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
It looks like the man who made the statements that rekindled the fervor of the Birther's has recanted his statements. According the Mike Evans himself,
quote
"I NEVER knew I said it until I heard it," he wrote, adding that he feels "embarrassed" by the entire incident. "NO MORE POLITICS FOR ME!!" the entertainment journalist said. "For now on, I'm sticking with Lindsay Lohan and Snookie stuff."
Here is an article regarding the interview with this "reporter".
A celebrity journalist made a shocking claim recently that the governor of Hawaii said there is no Obama birth certificate - but now says he was misunderstood.
Radio personality Mike Evans told KQRS-FM in Minnesota on Jan. 20 that Gov. Neil Abercrombie, recently sworn in as the "The Islands of Aloha"'s top executive, admitted that no record existed of President Obama having been born in that state.
Claiming that he and Abercrombie had been friends for "decades," Evans stated, "Neil promised me that when he became governor he was going to cut through all the red tape. He was gonna get Obama's birth certificate, once and for all, and end this stupid controversy."
Abercrombie has since backed off his boast that he would prove Obama's birth this week, since Hawaii law prevents personal information such as birth records to be released.
Evans went on to tell KQRS that he talked "with Neil's office, Neil says that he's searched everywhere using his power as governor" at the two hospitals Obama was likely born at in 1961 - Kapiolani Medical Center and Queens Medical Center - only to come up empty.
"There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii," Evans claimed he was told by the governor's office. "Absolutely no proof that he was born in Hawaii... now [Abercrombie] admits, publically, that there is no birth certificate."
Evans now says it was all a big misunderstanding.
"This I can you tell you is 100% fact," he told Fox News. "Neil never told me there was no birth certificate... I never talked to him."
Evans told the Daily News in an e-mail that he was "STUNNED!" when his statements appeared in headlines nationwide.
"I NEVER knew I said it until I heard it," he wrote, adding that he feels "embarrassed" by the entire incident. "NO MORE POLITICS FOR ME!!" the entertainment journalist said. "For now on, I'm sticking with Lindsay Lohan and Snookie stuff."
Evans told the News it was an online article with a misleading headline that had caused him to even call Abercrombie's office.
The article cited an interview the governor had done with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, during which he mentioned Obama's birth certificate.
However, while the article "suggests" the governor said he could not find the birth certificate, he never makes any such statement in the Star-Advertiser interview. In fact, he indicates that a record of Obama's birth does exist.
"It actually exists in the archives, written down," he said, although it is unclear what kind of record he is referring to.
Evans indicated that one portion of the article's final paragraph sparked him to call Abercrombie's office. It states:
"Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there."
Adams has stated in the past only that he was "told at the time" that there was no birth certificate. However, even he believes Obama is a citizen.
"Since Obama does have a certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii... he was born a U.S. citizen," he said in a TV interview.
Evans' comments kicked off a series of reports that have fueled the fringe "birther" movement, which has claimed since 2008 that President Obama is not eligible to be commander-in-chief. Their conspiracy theories suggest he is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was a British subject, and also claim Obama was really born in Kenya or Indonesia.
Obama made his certification of live birth public in 2008, and even Congress stated in 2009 that he was born in Hawaii.
Legislation dubbed the "Birther Bill" was re-introduced in Arizona earlier this week directed specifically at Obama, which would require anyone looking to get on presidential ballot in the state to produce a long-form birth certificate.
IP: Logged
11:26 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Hawaii Bill Would Charge $100 for Obama Birth Info Thursday, 27 Jan 2011 07:57 PM
HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii's government would charge $100 for a copy of President Barack Obama's birth records under a bill introduced in the state Legislature by five Democrats. The bill would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member or a court.
The measure hasn't been scheduled for a public hearing, a required step before it can move forward. A decision on considering the bill will be made by the House's Democratic leadership and committee chairmen.
The idea behind the measure is to end skepticism over Obama's birthplace while raising a little money for a government with a projected budget deficit exceeding $800 million over the next two years.
"If it passes, it will calm the birthers down," said the bill's primary sponsor, Rep. Rida Cabanilla. "All these people are still doubting it because they don't want the birth certificate from Obama. They want it from our state office."
So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. Many of the skeptics question whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country.
The Obama campaign issued a certification of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's Aug. 4, 1961, birth date, his birth city and name, and his parents' names and races.
Hawaii's former health director also has said she verified Obama's original records. And notices were published in two local newspapers within days of his birth at a Honolulu hospital.
Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama's parents and knew him as a child, said last month he wanted to release more of the state's birth information about Obama. But he ended the effort last week when the state attorney general told him that privacy laws bar disclosure of an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent.
The new legislation to release records may run into similar legal problems because of Hawaii's strong constitutional privacy protections, said Rep. John Mizuno, a co-sponsor of the bill.
"If people really want to confirm Barack Obama is born in Hawaii, that's fine," Mizuno said. "I don't have a problem with looking at innovative ways to bring revenue to the state. The taxpayers deserve a break."
The $100 fee would help offset the extra work by state employees who handle frequent phone calls and e-mails from people who believe Obama was born elsewhere, Cabanilla said.
But the number of birther requests has been declining from the 10 to 20 weekly inquiries received early last year, according to the Department of Health.
"Requests have decreased significantly over the years. Currently we receive anywhere from zero to five per week," said department spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The Health Department is still reviewing the bill, Okubo said.
House Health Committee Chairman Ryan Yamane didn't immediately return messages seeking comment on whether he would hold a hearing on the bill.
Chris Matthews: Obama doesn't have long-form B.C. MSNBC anchor suggests computer-generated online document is all there is
MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, who earlier announced he is the "enemy of birthers" but said even so he thinks Barack Obama should release his birth certificate, now has suggested that the online, computer-generated image of a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii is the only document Obama has.
It also was Matthews who famously stated about listening to Obama, "I felt this thrill running up my leg. I don't have that too often."
Matthews was poking fun at a new move by state legislatures across the country to adopt state laws that would require presidential candidates to document their constitutional eligibility in order to be on the state's ballot:
"The beard keeps growing on this thing," he jested. "They believe they've got something there that could embarrass the president."
(Story continues below)
He pointed out that the "old school" birth certificates have all sorts of signatures and writing on them.
"Now you have the new kind which is a digital thing, printed out," he said. "The president has produced this new kind. It's been fine for him … He doesn't have the other kind apparently," Matthews said.
Earlier, he was addressing Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie's statement that he was going to chase down Obama's original state birth certificate to prove his eligibility.
At the time, Matthews said, "I don't understand why doesn't the president just say send me a copy right now … let's get this crappy story dead."
Abercrombie later said, according to his friend radio personality Mike Evans, that the document doesn't exist and expressed concern that the controversy will be a major issue for Obama during his planned 2012 presidential re-election campaign.
Evans related how Abercrombie had taken over the governor's office assuming he'd be able to clear things up, but then couldn't find the records he was seeking.
"Abercrombie was probably more shocked than anybody," Evans said. .
WND has reported on the issue to which Matthews was referring in his discussion about the states' actions.
Arizona and at least nine other states are developing plans that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.
And they aren't all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met.
In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.
Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.
His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens."
"If we as an entity of civil government don't follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?" he said. "We need to lead by example."
WND reported earlier that Arizona, which had a plan to require documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates passed by the state House a year ago, had proposed a new plan.
According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.
There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.
Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "certification of live birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.
IP: Logged
10:19 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22896 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
And if he does comply, and show proof, will it end there? Probably not. On top of that, this is a lot of effort and time (not to mention taxpayer expense from the party that complains about spending) that could be used to actually fix problems we have in this country....
The laws were put in place for a reason. I want to believe that the Federal Government did it's due diligence before allowing it to get to THIS point. But quite honestly, there is a reason why these laws were put into place... and they MUST be absolutely enforced. According to the law, most of my family could never become president of the united states, and they've fought for their country. Still, that was a constitutional requirement, and I respect it.
Don't believe the hype! This country is completely (though one hopes not irreparably) separated and divided along the lines of an "R" or "D" next to a name. Do some research....trust me it won't take you longer than it takes to soft boil an egg to see just how defined the division is.
IMO, anyone who can't see that is either guilty of naivete or dis-ingenuousness.
I really think it's too late. The separate parties have had the people fighting for so long that anyone who pays attention hates both parties.
Brad
IP: Logged
09:52 PM
Feb 10th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
The push at the state level to ensure no future president enters office under the cloud of suspicion that he or she might not be constitutionally eligible is growing.
At the request of a local tea-party group, Tennessee state Sen. Mae Beavers has filed a bill that would require presidential candidates to show an original birth certificate establishing constitutional eligibility for the office before getting on the ballot beginning in 2012.
Beavers told a local television station she said she wouldn't comment about whether or not she believes Obama meets the test because she has no personal knowledge about whether or not he can prove it. She said, however, this legislation would erase all concerns in future elections.
"We just want to make doubly sure in Tennessee if we put someone on the ballot, they are qualified to run," said Beavers.
That makes 11 state legislatures now considering such bills – with several of them well on the way to passage.
There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.
New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.
Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.
Arizona
This is the one that could change the game. A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. "I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND.
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."
"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the plan explains.
The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as in 2010 when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.
Connecticut
In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
It would require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot."
That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."
Georgia
In Georgia, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.
"Each political party shall provide for each candidate ... original documentation that he meets the qualifications of Article, 2 Section 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution to serve as president of the United States if elected to such office," it states.
"Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates," it says.
Indiana
In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.
It calls for the candidates "to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution" and accompany that certification with "a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications."
In also provides "that the election division may not certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United States unless the election division has received a nominee's certification and documentation."
On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:
"However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph's legislation, no major party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election's division with a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and any other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements."
He cited the "unprecedented" 2008 election, where "the candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being filed across the country. Sen. John McCain's birth in Panama where his father was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility.
"Obama furnished to Factcheck.org what was purported to be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed."
But he said the issue was that neither candidate was "required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth certificate ... ."
He said, "After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.
"Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph and those who support it as 'birthers.' To them I say it is no more absurd than the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver's license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of transactions," he said.
On Welsh's blog, a forum participant wrote, "All I can say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to. Why is he so secretive?"
Maine
Maine's LD34 calls for a requirement for candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship.
It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."
Missouri
The Missouri plan, HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, would require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."
Nebraska
In Nebraska, with LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."
That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."
Montana
Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.
"There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."
Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."
But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.
"Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution," says his proposed legislation.
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access.
It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad ...
"Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
Pennsylvania (pending)
In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's office.
Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.
He described it as a "problem" that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."
"We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session," he said.
Texas
A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require candidates' documentation.
Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:
It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."
It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.
State Rep. Leo Berman
Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.
He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.
At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "certification of live birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan territory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.
Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.
"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.
There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.
Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." The bill also provided:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years." It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.
There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.
An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.
For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:
erected billboards around the country demanding, "Where's the birth certificate?":
produced a 40-page special report on the subject;
produced a 60-minute documentary video primer on the issue;
manufactured yard and rally signs to bring attention to the topic;
pledged to donate at least $15,000 to any hospital in Hawaii or anywhere else that provides proof Obama was born there and given you an opportunity to raise the amount;
created a line of T-shirts you can wear to appearances by the president to raise visibility of the issue;
created a fund to which you can donate to further the kind of investigative reporting into this matter only this company has performed over the last two years;
launched a line of postcards you can use to keep the issue alive;
distributed thousands of bumper stickers asking, "Where's the birth certificate?" Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.
"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."
IP: Logged
08:36 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
There is several different angles to this same question on Snopes reguarding the President's birth accusastions. Snopes individually labels every single one of them as false.
They even have pictures of it.
IP: Logged
08:53 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Supreme Court told: Don't avoid eligibility Attorney warns justices real problem is getting judges to take oath 'seriously' http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...pageId=261393Supreme Court told: Don't avoid eligibility
quote
A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."
And he asks whether the justices still are committed to the principle of considering the Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues.
The warning comes from attorney John D. Hemenway, who is representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was eligible under the Constitution's requirements for a president to occupy the Oval Office.
"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.
"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.
"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."
That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."
"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."
"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"
"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."
The video:
Hemenway's arguments come in the petition for rehearing that follows the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.
That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.
Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.
Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.
"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court yesterday and expected to be docketed today.
"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.
"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.
"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.
The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"
The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'
"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.
A spokeswoman for the court told WND the motion for recusal was received Dec. 30, but the justices wouldn't treat it as an actual motion for the court, just as a "request."
"These types of requests are not treated as motions, but are requests that are forwarded by the clerk's office to the justice or justices to which the request is addressed. The requests are handled by the individual justice or justices.
"If a justice recuses from a case the recusal is noted on the docket typically at the time the court issues an order acting on the case," the spokeswoman said.
However, the document prepared for the Supreme Court clearly stated "Motion for Recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan," and a second time, "Petitioners' Motion to Recuse."
But the court spokeswoman declined to respond to the inquiries about the procedures regarding recusal of justices who have a personal stake in such cases -- what ethical guidelines are used by the court to determine those cases and whether there was a violation of the court rules in the case.
In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.
The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.
It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.
Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.
WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.
"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.
At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.
Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.
Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.
The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."
It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.
"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.
Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.
"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.
The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.
The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."
"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.
The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.
Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
IP: Logged
08:59 PM
Feb 18th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
If anyone has a right to be frustrated and demoralized about the eligibility issue, it is me.
For nearly three years, I have stuck my neck out on it, devoting massive news-gathering resources to unwrapping Barack Obama's real-life narrative, endured abuse as a "conspiracy theorist" and "wacko" only to see my news organization still standing virtually alone.
Ironically, I'm not discouraged at all about getting resolution to this controversy. In fact, I believe it is right around the corner.
I can understand the reason for the discouragement of others. They've watched court case after court case dismissed. They've watched an officer and a gentleman by the name of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin go to prison for trying to get at the truth. They've witnessed their majority views of skepticism about Obama ridiculed and marginalized. They've seen a near blackout of media coverage of the real issues of constitutional eligibility.
But what most people have not yet noticed is that judgment day is near.
Nearly a year ago, I spelled out how this issue would be resolved no later than 2012.
Today, I can honestly and enthusiastically say, "See, I told you so."
Jack Cashill's literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama's alleged life narrative. Order the new book "Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America's First Post-Modern President"
Back then, Americans were still just beginning to become aware of the many contradictions in Obama's life narrative and the fact that there was no meaningful evidence of his constitutional eligibility.
Today, at least 58 percent of Americans don't believe his story – and want to see real proof.
That is a crisis for Obama. That's not a fact that will change should winds of economic recovery blow in his direction over the next two years.
But there's an even bigger crisis he's facing in 2012 if he plans to stand for re-election.
Again, as I predicted last year, states are approving strict eligibility tests to get on their ballots as presidential candidates. Back then, I was hopeful four or five states might make such moves, virtually ensuring no candidate of questionable eligibility could ever again run for the presidency, let alone assume office.
My prediction, it turns out, was too conservative.
So far, 11 states have introduced such legislation this year alone, with some of them sure to pass into law.
So be of good cheer, all you crazy "birthers"!
We're winning.
The system is correcting itself.
The people are having their say.
States are asserting their sovereign rights to conduct free and fair elections.
It's all good.
And there really is resolution in sight.
I am so confident about the eventual outcome now that I am increasingly persuaded that Barack Obama will not even seek re-election.
That will be the tipoff that our suspicions about Obama's eligibility and/or life story were correct all along.
Of course, you will have to remind your friends and neighbors and the Big Media that this outcome was predicted years in advance. Don't expect them to remember. Don't expect WND to get the Pulitzer Prize for public affairs reporting. Don't expect any monuments to be erected to me. Don't expect to get any apologies from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and company.
But let not your heart be troubled over Obama magically surviving this controversy by getting re-elected. That is just not in the cards.
At the same time, however, we need to keep pushing this issue harder and harder and harder. It's no time to relax and be overconfident. There's still a lot of work to do.
And here at WND, we have some surprises coming in the next few months that will shock the Obama apologists and the Big Media cover-up artists.
Stay tuned. It's going to be … interesting.
IP: Logged
09:28 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.
At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.
Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.
He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."
"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.
"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.
"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."
That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
Docketing information from Supreme Court
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."
"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."
"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"
"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."
The video:
Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.
That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.
Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.
Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.
"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.
"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.
"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.
"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.
The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"
The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'
"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.
In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.
The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.
It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.
Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.
WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.
"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.
At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.
Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.
Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.
The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."
It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.
"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.
Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.
"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.
The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.
The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."
"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.
The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.
Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii as he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
IP: Logged
09:09 PM
Mar 4th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
A long list of state lawmakers are marching forward on a number of legislative fronts to ensure candidates for president on their election ballots are eligible to hold the office.
But state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Ga., is taking it one step further with his proposed eligibility requirement – making it illegal for an elector to cast a ballot for an unapproved candidate.
The state's Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act would specify, "It is unlawful for any presidential elector from this state to cast his or her electoral college vote for a candidate who is not approved by the Secretary of State as having submitted adequate evidence of eligibility. Any person who violates this Code section shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature."
WND has reported on the state-level efforts to ensure that candidates for the Oval Office meet the requirements established in the U.S. Constitution: a resident for 14 years, at least 35 years of age and a "natural born Citizen."
At least 11 states have seen such requirements introduced in the current state legislative sessions, and in 10 of those states the plans still are alive. A committee vote in Montana tabled a proposal there.
Hatfield told WND that his new bill is similar to the plan he proposed at the end of last year's session but which was not submitted in time to advance. It, like many in other states, calls for assurances that "no person shall be eligible for placement on any ballot as a candidate for president or vice president unless the secretary of state shall have received and approved adequate evidence of such person's eligibility for election to such office."
The bill also specifies the evidence needed and authorizes "any elector of this state" to challenge the qualifications that a candidate would offer as proof. It calls for a long-form birth certificate that includes details of the candidate's birth, or "the candidate's birth records, adoption records, baptism records, Social Security records, medical records, school and college records, military records, and passport records."
Computer-generated facsimiles won't do.
"The candidate shall not attach certified or other copies of nonoriginal documents or records," the law requires.
It also requires affirmations that the candidate never was a citizen of another country and never had dual or multiple citizenships.
Also, residence addresses for the past 14 years "in the United States" are required.
"The secretary of state shall approve the evidence of eligibility as adequate or if the secretary of state finds reasonable cause to believe that any candidate does not meet the natural born citizenship, age, and residency requirements prescribed by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the secretary of state shall not place such candidate's name on the ballot in this state."
Hatfield said he already has 94 signatures on the bill in a 180-member House where 91 votes are needed for passage.
"We're encouraged by the fact that we have enough votes already if it gets to the floor. We are cautiously optimistic we have the votes to pass it," he told WND.
The first hearing by a subcommittee on the issue was held today, and while a couple of small technical amendments were suggested, a vote could come within a day or two, he said.
It then would move on to the Senate, where Hatfield said he's already working with members who share concerns about the gap in the U.S. electoral process. Obama's election in 2008, he said, illustrated that there is no authority to require documentation of eligibility.
"My gut feeling is that the Senate will be receptive to the bill," he said.
Hatfield said his bill would not only address Obama's eligibility, but issues surrounding the eligibility of President Chester Arthur and candidates such as Michigan Gov. George Romney in the 1960s.
"This has been going on for some time on and off," he said. "And when Congress has not taken any steps for any enforcement mechanism, the Constitution gives states the power to control the manner in which electors are elected by the states."
He said by extension the Constitution gives states the authority to run their own elections.
Hatfield said when such a bill eventually becomes law, in Georgia or somewhere else, he expects the political process to continue as it has and candidates "will come in and submit their evidence of eligibility."
Georgia also has a previous proposal, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin, that would demand birth-certificate documentation and give citizens standing to challenge the documentation.
That measure is pending in the House judiciary committee, according to the files at the National Conference of State Legislatures, which for the second straight year is tracking such plans.
Other states involved in the hunt for a solution include Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
With the exception of Montana, all of those plans are listed as moving forward, with assignments to committees or hearings. Here are the plans:
Arizona
This is the one that could change the game. A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass.
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was issued with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass. It has been moved to the House judiciary committee as well as the House rules committee.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage. Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. "I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," Burges told WND.
The Arizona bill also requires attachments "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."
"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the plan explains.
The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty bringing direct challenges to Washington. In 2010, when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law, the prompted an immediate court challenge by the federal government.
Connecticut
In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred to the joint committee on government administration and elections.
It would require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot."
That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."
Indiana
In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.
The bill also has been assigned to committee.
It calls for the candidates "to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution" and accompany that certification with "a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications."
In also provides "that the election division may not certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United States unless the election division has received a nominee's certification and documentation."
On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:
"However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph's legislation, no major party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election's division with a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and any other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements."
He cited the "unprecedented" 2008 election, in which "the candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being filed across the country. Sen. John McCain's birth in Panama where his father was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility."
"Obama furnished to Factcheck.org what was purported to be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed."
But he said the issue was that neither candidate was "required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth certificate."
He said, "After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.
"Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph and those who support it as 'birthers.' To them I say it is no more absurd than the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver's license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of transactions," he said.
On Welsh's blog, a forum participant wrote, "All I can say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to. Why is he so secretive?"
Maine
Maine's LD34 requires candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It's been assigned to a conference committee.
It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."
Missouri
The Missouri plan, HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, states certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."
It's in the House elections committee and has been scheduled for a public hearing.
Montana
Under Montana's bill by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have had to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.
According to the NCSL database, the bill was defeated at the committee stage, and it's unknown if there are plans to resurrect it by attaching it to another bill, a routine procedure in some states.
"There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."
Wagner's legislation cited the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."
But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them, and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner went a step beyond.
"Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution," says his proposed legislation.
Nebraska
In Nebraska, with LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."
The paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
The plan, in committee now, requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, SB91, also in committee, would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing public access.
It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.
"Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act."
Tennessee
At the request of a local tea-party group, Tennessee state Sen. Mae Beavers has filed a bill that would require presidential candidates to show an original birth certificate establishing constitutional eligibility for the office before getting on the ballot beginning in 2012.
Beavers told a local television station she said she wouldn't comment about whether or not she believes Obama meets the test because she has no personal knowledge about whether or not he can prove it. She said, however, this legislation would erase all concerns in future elections.
"We just want to make doubly sure in Tennessee if we put someone on the ballot, they are qualified to run," said Beavers.
Texas
A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, would require candidates' documentation.
Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple. It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."
It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.
State Rep. Leo Berman
Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.
He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.
New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.
In Pennsylvania, there has been excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's office. Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.
He described it as a "problem" that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a natural-born citizen.
"We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session," he said.
At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a natural-born citizen was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
Other definitions regard a natural-born citizen to be a person born of citizen parents inside the nation.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's natural-born citizen status never has been documented. Critics argue the short-form certification of live birth his campaign posted online is not definitive because Hawaii's lax laws enabled families to report a birth without proof that the child was born in Hawaii.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan territory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.
Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.
"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.
There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.
Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." The bill also provided:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years." It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.
There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.
An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.
For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:
erected billboards around the country demanding, "Where's the birth certificate?":
produced a 40-page special report on the subject;
produced a 60-minute documentary video primer on the issue;
manufactured yard and rally signs to bring attention to the topic;
pledged to donate at least $15,000 to any hospital in Hawaii or anywhere else that provides proof Obama was born there and given you an opportunity to raise the amount;
created a line of T-shirts you can wear to appearances by the president to raise visibility of the issue;
created a fund to which you can donate to further the kind of investigative reporting into this matter only this company has performed over the last two years;
launched a line of postcards you can use to keep the issue alive;
distributed thousands of bumper stickers asking, "Where's the birth certificate?" Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.
"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective.
IP: Logged
09:52 AM
Mar 10th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
A top officer for National Public Radio has confirmed that many Americans still question whether Barack Obama is eligible to be president but admits that the tax-supported organization isn't reporting on it.
It was Betsy Liley, NPR's senior director of institutional giving, who was meeting with another NPR executive, senior Vice President Ron Schiller, when an undercover recorder was running.
In the recording, the two executives discuss how a donor wanted to contribute to coverage of climate change, but only if just one side of the story – the side promoting man-made climate change as fact – is reported.
Liley calls it "complicated."
"There's a political question, and there is a scientific question, and we were talking to him about supporting the science desk. And so we've gone back to the science editor and asked how have you planned to cover this?"
She said the science desk appears to cover climate change as established science but noted that the political desk in Washington may move into other areas.
"So it's more complicated than saying, 'Where was Obama born? In Hawaii or not? Is he an American citizen or not?'" she explains.
"There's still a question about whether he is and that is a fact," she said. "But I think the challenge in our society now is questioning facts. It's not opinions that we're debating. It's what are the facts? Is the world flat? I mean is that the next question we're going to debate?"
As the Washington Times put it, Liley spilled "the birther beans during an undercover sting."
"We're not covering the birthers. We are not covering them," Liley said. "There's a whole movement within the conservative group about questioning something that Obama has said as fact, 'I was born in Hawaii, when it was a United States state.' The group that questions this, some of whom are commentators ... I don't know any who are Democrats, but they are primarily conservative commentators and people who follow them question if Obama is [a natural-born citizen]."
Liley also cites a "stunning" study revealing that "51 percent of Americans now believe that Obama was not born in the United States."
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama over his status as a natural-born citizen. The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Still others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question what passport he used to travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers as well as his appointment of a team of lawyers to defend against all requests for release of his documentation.
Others who have raised questions include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Chris Mathews, Laura Ingraham and a long list of media and political personalities.
IP: Logged
06:14 PM
Mar 24th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Trump: Obama Must Release Birth Certificate Donald Trump is calling on President Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate and end speculation he was born outside the United States.
"I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate," Trump said on ABC's "The View." "There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like."
Trump said he believe Obama "probably" was born in the United States but repeated questions he raised last week about the president's childhood, CNN reported.
"If you go back to my first grade, my kindergarten, people remember me. Nobody from those early years remembers him," Trump said. "If you're going to be president of the United States, it says very profoundly you have to be born in this country."
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama's parents in Hawaii who said he remembers when the future president was born, first vowed to produce an original copy of the president's birth certificate this year.
But he abandoned those efforts because it is against state law to release private documents, CNN quoted his spokeswoman as saying.
Until now, the president’s representatives have depended on a certification of live birth that reported his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii.
The certification of live birth is a summary of the birth certificate's details, but does not include information typically found in the full certificate, such as place of birth and attending physician.
Trump is not alone in suggesting that Obama should release his full birth certificate.
In December, MSNBC’s pro-Obama host Chris Matthews called on the president to release his long-form birth certificate to settle the controversy surrounding his birthplace once and for all, saying, “If it exists, why not put it out?”
“I am not a birther,” Matthews declared. “I am an enemy of the birthers.”
But he held up the long-form birth certificate of someone who was born the day before Obama, and compared it with the shorter version Obama has released, which to the birthers, he said, “is evidence that he really ain’t one of us.
“Why has the president himself not demanded that they put out the official document?” Matthews said.
“Why doesn’t the governor just say, snap it up, whoever’s there at the department of records, send me a copy right now? Why doesn’t the president just say, send me a copy right now? Why doesn’t [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs and [senior adviser David] Axelrod say, let’s just get this crappy story dead? Why not do it?
“The department out there just said the other day that there is such a thing. It exists. The original document of his birth is available. They have it in storage, they said. And if it exists, why not put it out?
“Will there be any harm done by releasing the original document?”
But Obama’s critics — many of whom don’t buy in the birther theory that he was born outside the United States — still note a pattern of secrecy surrounding much of Obama’s life before he entered politics. They note that Obama never has unveiled many key documents that presidential candidates traditionally release to the press and the public.
For example: During the presidential campaign, Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health, while GOP opponent John McCain released what he said was his complete medical file totaling more than 1,500 pages. The Obama campaign eventually released some routine lab-test results and electrocardiograms for Obama. Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois and did not produce correspondence, such as letters from lobbyists and other information, from his days in the Illinois Senate. Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. Obama declined to release his college records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University. Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia University, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Such transcripts would list the courses Obama took, and his grades. Obama’s college dissertation, reportedly titled “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament,” has disappeared from Columbia’s archives. Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois state bar, which would clear up intermittent allegations that his application to the bar may have been inaccurate. Obama has not released records from his time at Harvard Law School. During his campaign for president, Obama promised he would make his White House “the most open and transparent administration in history.”
IP: Logged
05:16 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Even Mad magazine is getting in on the action. Mad magazine dishes on Obama's birthplace Lampoons eligibility, Teleprompters, middle name, busted lip, Jeremiah Wright http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...E.view&pageId=278437
quote
Lawsuits have claimed Barack Obama fails the Constitution's eligibility test for presidents because his father was a Kenyan, because he was born overseas and because his original long-form birth certificate has been withheld.
Mad magazine, now, has released its solution: His birthplace is "wherever it was he was born."
The magazine, in an article "How Barack Obama stacks up to the other 42 presidents," also takes jabs at Obama's dependence on Teleprompters, his middle name (Hussein), his busted lip and his onetime pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Barack Obama's birthplace?
While George Washington's "head was carved into Mt. Rushmore, Obama's head was sculpted into a Chia Pet," the article starts. Then, John Adams "got lost on his way to go live in the White House. Obama successfully reached the White House, but has been lost ever since."
It's when the list gets to Andrew Jackson the magazine explains, "Before Jackson, there had never been a president born west of the Appalachian Mountains. Before Obama, there had never been a president born … wherever it was he was born."
The jab focuses on the ongoing dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the Constitution's requirement that presidents be a "natural born Citizen."
The "certification of live birth" that his campaign posted online in the 2008 election is a document that state rules allowed to be given to those not born in the state, and his original birth certificate never has been made available.
Grooming another Bush?
Further, among the lawsuits and challenges that have arisen are those who allege he couldn't qualify as a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan citizen.
Besides his original birth certificate, also withheld have been his school records, college records, records from his years in the Illinois legislature and other documents typically available for prominent leaders.
There have been multiple lawsuits over the issue, although judges have dismissed almost all of them so far. One Supreme Court justice even admitted the panel was "evading" the issue of Obama's eligibility.
While WND has reported on the challenges and legal cases since before Obama's election, only about half of Americans at that time were even aware of the dispute. Recent polls, however, reveal that more than half of Americans now doubt Obama's proclaimed birth story.
A new poll now reveals not even one person in 10 says Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States. Another 32 percent would disregard the questions entirely, concluding they are not valid.
About James Madison, Mad wrote, "Madison's wife introduced ice cream to the White House. Obama's wife introduced a vegetable garden. Seriously? Come on ... "
Obama's campaign slogan of "Yes We Can" also was in the bull's-eye: About John Tyler, Mad said, "The campaign phrase 'Tippecanoe and Tyler Too' is every bit as vague and irrelevant as 'Yes We Can.'"
The magazine had no qualms suggesting that Obama will not win re-election. About Grover Cleveland was this: "Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms. There's no certainty Obama will even want to run in 2016."
Some others:
About Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "FDR stood up to Germany and Japan. Obama can't even stand up to Mitch McConnell.
Gerald Ford: "Ford declared that 'our long national nightmare is over.' Obama would never say that, knowing our current nightmare still has several years to go."
Jimmy Carter: "Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with Habitat for Humanity. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because ... uhhhh ... help us out here." On Martin Van Buren: "Van Buren was the first president to be born an American citizen. Obama was the first president to bust his lip open playing a pickup game of basketball."
On Benjamin Harrison: "Harrison was considered one of the best extemporaneous speakers of his day. Obama is considered one of the best Teleprompter readers of his day."
Barack Obama
On Herbert Hoover: "As we go to press, angry poor people have not yet set up 'Obamavilles.'"
The magazine need have no concern about joking about the eligibility – and other issues – of a sitting president. Obama seems dedicated to keeping the jokes about his lack of eligibility documentation alive himself.
It was Daniel Kurtzman at Political Humor who noted that the Marine Band was playing "Hail to the Chief" as Obama moved toward the podium during a recent Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington, but he waived off the song.
"Play that song we talked about," he told them, and the band started "Born in the U.S.A."
"Some things just bear repeating," he joked.
According to Associated Press, Obama also "poked fun" at Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a possible GOP contender in 2012.
"Tim Pawlenty's not here, but he's hit the campaign trail hard," Obama said. "And to be honest, I think the American people are going to have some tough questions for Tim. Specifically, 'Who are you and where do you come from?' Which is OK. Two years into my presidency and I'm still getting those questions," Obama said.
At a recent Boston fundraiser, he pushed hard on the issue.
"There's no weakness in us trying to reach out and seeing if we can find common ground," he told attendees. "Now, there are going to be times where we can't. I was born in Hawaii. What can I say? I mean, I just ... I can't change those facts."
It was just about a year ago at the White House correspondents' annual dinner when he couldn't leave the subject alone, either:
Obama jokes about birth certificate by itnnews
"There are few things in life that are harder to find and more important to keep than love. Well, love and a birth certificate," he said.
IP: Logged
07:52 PM
PFF
System Bot
Flamberge Member
Posts: 4268 From: Terra Sancta, TX Registered: Oct 2001
Even Mad magazine is getting in on the action. Mad magazine dishes on Obama's birthplace Lampoons eligibility, Teleprompters, middle name, busted lip, Jeremiah Wright http://www.wnd.com/index.ph...E.view&pageId=278437
Mad magazine? Really? Come on Avengador, you can do better than that.
I agree there is an issue with the birth certificate, and the democrat party's vetting process (and the republican party's for that matter) should NOT be the only door people must pass through for eligibility. But that said...Mad Magazine? They "dish" on everyone and everything that is current news. So what?
IP: Logged
08:26 PM
Mar 25th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I have always stated that it doesn't matter to me if Obama releases his birth certificate or not, I do believe he is a citizen because his mother is an American. I find it funny that this has become such a big story that even a lampoon magazine is making fun of it. There really shouldn't be any story here and yet it won't die. Obama could stop this whole circus by releasing his real birth certificate, even if it happens to be from another country, that doesn't neccesarily mean he isn't a natural born citizen. I'll keep posting these stories as they appear. Here is another one. Trump Refuses to Back Down Over Obama's 'Very Strange' Birth http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=BEFF-1
quote
Donald Trump is not backing down from his demand that President Barack Obama produce his birth certificate and stepped up his criticism by questioning why he has not released other personal records, including college transcripts and legislative papers.
The billionaire real estate tycoon and star of “The Apprentice” created a stir on Wednesday when he said on “The View” that Obama must release his birth certificate.
Now Trump has reiterated his call in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, with this simple message for Obama: Why don’t you produce your birth certificate and put to rest all speculation that you were born outside the United States?
He says Obama’s birth certificate controversy is a “strange situation” — there are conflicting reports as to what Honolulu hospital he was born at, and the governor of Hawaii claims he somehow remembers Obama being born 50 years ago.
Trump, who says he will soon announce if he will run for president in 2012, also says Libya is a “total mess,” with Iran possibly behind the rebels and waiting to take over the country, and charges that the United States is going to “hell in a hand basket.”
“It’s a very simple situation,” Trump says in regard to the birth certificate issue. “I’d just like to see his birth certificate.
“I’m hearing all sorts of stories that his own family can’t agree which hospital he was born in and lots of other things, and I’m trying to find out where is the birth certificate. I have a birth certificate. Where is his birth certificate?
“If you’re born in this country, to the best of my knowledge people have a birth certificate.”
Obama asserts that he was born in Honolulu, but former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg has claimed that Obama’s paternal grandmother says she was in the delivery room when he was born in Kenya.
There are even differing reports about which Honolulu hospital he may have been born at. During his 2008 presidential campaign numerous reports indicated Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center. Later, Obama's half sister said he was born at the Katiolani Medical Center.
After questions were raised about his birth, Obama's campaign released a Certification of Live Birth. The form is a summary document and does not include the newborn's location of birth. The long-form Birth Certificate includes such data, but Obama has declined to release it.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie first ordered the state attorney general and health department director to release more information about Obama’s birth there, then abandoned that pursuit.
“It is an amazing situation,” Trump says of the governor’s actions. “And later the governor said, but I remember when he was born. I said, what? You actually remember when somebody was born? It sounded very unusual that a Democratic governor would remember when somebody was born 50 years ago.
“I assume that Obama was born in the United States. I assume he was probably born in Hawaii. But I have to get rid of the word ‘assume.’ If somebody wants to run for president you have to be born in this country.
And when the family argues about which hospital it was because they’re not sure, as has been reported, and you don’t have a birth certificate, it’s sort of a strange situation.”
Trump adds: “I don’t want there to be a question. I think it would be wonderful news for everybody, including me, if the birth certificate is found. But at this moment there is no birth certificate.
“Some people say it exists, and if it exists, even worse, why isn’t he showing it? So I would like to see a birth certificate, and when the governor and everybody else say they think it exists, why don’t they produce it?”
Asked if Obama has fulfilled his campaign pledge to have the most transparent administration, Trump responds: “Certainly he hasn’t in terms of his birth, and I guess a lot of college records and other records haven’t been produced, and that’s a little unusual. Why wouldn’t you produce your records?
“There are client lists that haven’t been produced and lobbying lists that haven’t been produced, so there are a lot of things that haven’t been produced for somebody who is supposed to be so transparent.
“There’s certainly not a lot of transparency.”
Asked about the Obama administration’s handling of the rebellion in Libya, Trump tells Newsmax: “For one thing, if you’re going to save lives on a humanitarian basis you should have started sooner, because many of those lives are gone.
“For another thing, you really have to find out who you’re fighting for. Who are the rebels? You have some people who say that Iran is controlling the rebels, that Iran is the happiest of all nations because they think as soon as we leave they’re going to go in with the rebels and take over Libya.
“I hear more and more reports that the rebels aren’t the sweetest people on earth either. It looks to me like it’s a total mess.”
Polls show Trump among the leaders in the GOP field for the 2012 presidential nomination. Asked if he has decided whether or not to run, Trump says: “I will be announcing one way or another somewhere prior to June.
“I hate what’s happening to this country. It’s never been at a point like this, ever. We’re not respected. We’re scoffed at. We’re laughed at by other places. People from China and other places cannot believe they’re getting away with what they’re getting away with. We’re rebuilding China. We’re rebuilding other countries, and our country is going to hell in a hand basket.
“One thing I can say, if I ran and if I won, that would stop, and everybody knows it. I think that’s why I do well in the polls.”
IP: Logged
10:00 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Trump, who says he will soon announce if he will run for president in 2012, also says Libya is a “total mess,” with Iran possibly behind the rebels and waiting to take over the country, and charges that the United States is going to “hell in a hand basket.”
So, I suppose Trump supports Qaddafi.
Trump couldn't find Libya on a map.
Whatever else might be said about Trump, it's clear that foreign policy isn't one of his strengths.
IP: Logged
03:13 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Trump has had dealings with Lybia before so I'm sure he knows were it is. Now for another article on this story that won't die. Rush: Trump's Birth Certificate Outcry Is Service to Everyone http://www.newsmax.com/Insi...al&promo_code=BF33-1
quote
Rush Limbaugh entered the renewed fray over President Barack Obama's birth certificate by declaring that Donald Trump’s continued public outcry over the documentation is “a valuable service," not only to the public but also to Obama personally.
"The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him," Trump had remarked famously to ABC News. The potential presidential contender followed up his theme on Wednesday’s “The View,” again on the ABC Network.
During an interview with Newsmax Thursday, Trump restated his questions on the issue.
On "The View," a morning chat program, Trump declared that he believed Obama has a birth certificate, but that he should produce it to the world, ending the speculation that seems to never go away. Trump added that he felt it strange that "nobody from [Obama's] early years remembers him."
There’s "something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like," Trump opined to the cast members, including Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters, who berated him, accusing him of possibly racist thoughts on the issue.
On Limbaugh’s show Thursday, the radio talker Limbaugh sided with Trump’s beating of the birth certificate drum. "You and I have known all along that we're dealing with a man-child here who has, literally, no qualifications, no experience, and according to Donald Trump now, no birth certificate," Limbaugh declared.
Rush Limbaugh: Donald Trump's giving the president a chance to explain. (Getty Images Photo) "Trump is performing a valuable service here. He is attempting to help Obama out of a jam. You can't say Trump is a kook right-wing birther. Trump realized the problem that Obama faces here with credibility. He's giving him a chance here to establish some credibility by producing the birth certificate,” Limbaugh added.
Charging that elements of the major media were "covering it up" and "papering it over," he concluded: “Trump's not the kind of guy to comb over difficulties. If he's going to bring this up . . . you know that it's serious."
Meanwhile, part of the heated exchange on "The View":
"Why doesn't he show his birth certificate?" Trump said.
"Why should he have to?" Goldberg fired back.
"Because I have to and everybody else has to, Whoopi," Trump retorted.
"I've never heard any white president asked to be shown the birth certificate," Whoopi countered. "When you become the president of the United States of America, you know that he's American. I'm sorry. That's B.S."
I guess Whoopie never heard of John McCain or a few of the first presidents our country had.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-25-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:28 PM
Mar 28th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Donald Trump, who has been making television appearances calling for President Barack Obama to release his official birth documents, released his birth certificate exclusively to Newsmax on Monday.
“It took me one hour to get my birth certificate. It’s inconceivable that, after four years of questioning, the president still hasn’t produced his birth certificate. I’m just asking President Obama to show the public his birth certificate. Why’s he making an issue out of this?"
Trump was skeptical that so few people have stepped forward to verify Obama's birth.
"I went to the best college and I was a great student, and it is inconceivable to my brain that no doctor, no nurse, nobody has stepped forward to verify the birth, other than the governor. He remembers? The governor? A birth 50 years ago? Come on. He’s taking a bullet for his party."
He said other presidents have produced these documents without any hesitation.
"Ronald Reagan, George Bush have produced their birth certificates. Why doesn’t Obama?"
Trump added that the local newspaper ad announcing Obama’s birth also strikes him as odd.
“Someone takes an ad out in the paper announcing his birth days later? How many people do you know who take an ad out in the paper to announce a birth, and then won’t show anyone the birth certificate?”
The document released to Newsmax is below. It shows that Trump was born in New York, June 14, 1946. Trump has been the latest voice to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate, a source of controversy to some Americans who remain unconvinced that Obama was born in the United States. The president has released a "Certificate of Live Birth" showing he was born in Hawaii, but a more detailed birth certificate has not been made public.
Trump appeared on "The View" last week and found it "insulting" that co-host Whoopi Goldberg intimated that racism was behind the birth-certificate issue. Goldberg said that no white president had ever been asked to produce a birth certificate.
“The fact is they asked John McCain for his birth certificate,” Trump told Fox today. “They’ve asked others for their birth certificate. They asked Bush for his birth certificate, by the way, I just found out over the weekend. And they would ask me for my birth certificate."
IP: Logged
07:32 PM
pavo_roddy Member
Posts: 4351 From: State with a city named Gotham Registered: Apr 2004
I saw an angel close by me, on my left side, in bodily form. This I am not accustomed to see, unless very rarely. Though I have visions of angels frequently, yet I see them only by an intellectual vision, such as I have spoken of before. It was our Lord's will that in this vision I should see the angel in this wise. He was not large, but small of stature, and most beautiful — his face burning, as if he were one of the highest angels, who seem to be all of fire: they must be those whom we call cherubim.
My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with other human beings and human communities. Albert Einstein, wikiquotes.
hmmmm, leaned enuff...?
ok, you spoke it sooooooooooohhhhhhhh softly, rite?
Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions. albert einstein, wikiquotes.
------------------ Me, I sell engines, the cars are for free, I need something to crate the engines in.... Enzo Ferrari....
Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.... Enzo Ferrari...
Today they are called garage's, yesterday, they were stable's! Eric Jacobsen....
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Well, one of the things fueling the separation and division is the incredible division in standards between TREATMENT of democrats and republicans.
What do you think would have been the media response if a REPUBLICAN had the same birth certificate situation as Obama? It would have been a non-stop barrage of MEDIA pressure to produce an actual document. But because it is a democrat, the media response is to do everything they can to discredit and ridicule the people asking for Obama to submit proof. What do you think the media would have done regarding examination of the REPUBLICAN certification process?
They did do this against a Republican candidate, they made McCain prove his citizenship and eligibility before running.
IP: Logged
03:39 AM
Apr 7th, 2011
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
The story is still alive. Hawaii senator wonders what Obama's concealing 'Why would anyone spend millions not to make that information public?' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=283713#ixzz1IkMGzD9f
quote
The lone Republican in the Hawaii State Senate was interviewed on the radio this morning, explaining that while he believes Barack Obama was born in the Aloha State, he questions what might be on the original, long-form birth certificate that would prompt the president to go to such lengths to conceal it.
"I'm not a 'birther,'" Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom told Jeff Katz of WXKS Radio in Boston, "and I followed this from the very beginning. At first I followed it with amusement, and then I got really concerned about it, because the question was if it was not just the birth certificate, but other records as well – school records, academic records, work records – why would anyone spend millions of dollars in legal fees, particularly someone in public office, particularly someone in the highest public office, to not make that information public?"
As WND has reported, besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the president has refused to release his Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
"There are different theories," Slom continued. "One is that there is no birth certificate at all; I don't think that's true, I think there is a birth certificate. The second is there may be some very interesting information that the president does not want released, for example, who his father really is or what's listed on the birth certificate.
"In any event, here is the president of the United States," Slom said, "you've got to have [a birth certificate to present], why don't we require that of the president?"
Part of Katz's interview with Slom can be heard below:
Recently, potential presidential candidate Donald Trump has also questioned why Obama has kept his records under lock and key, stating, "There's something fishy about the whole thing," and, "There's something on that certificate that's very bad for him."
Slom referenced Trump after also explaining the difference between Hawaii's official, long-form birth certificate and Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" posted online.
"We have two forms of the birth certificate," Slom said. "One is the long-form, official certificate of live birth, and that's the one that's got all the data; and then there's the short form, and that's the one they've put up on the website … but that doesn't go into detail, doesn't give you all the information.
"So it comes back to the same thing," he concluded. "Why would anybody, let alone the president, spend all this money, all this time, all this effort, not to disclose the information? And of course, we can come up with several different possibilities, but as Donald Trump and others have said, gee, it would be so much simpler if he just disclosed it and we move on."
A second segment of the interview with Slom can be heard below:
As WND reported, Slom brought up questions after Hawaii's Democrat Governor Neil Abercrombie pledged to find and reveal Obama's birth documentation, then not only failed to follow through, but also asked for the resignation of the man he had chosen to serve as head of the Hawaii Department of Health.
Slom wrote Abercrombie, asking what happened with Dr. Neal Palafox, a well-respected physician picked to replace Chiyome Fukino, who had served as guardian of Barack Obama's birth certificate when she was head of the department.
Abercrombie responded in a letter, saying little more than, "I will comment if and when appropriate."
The blogosphere at the time was rife with speculation that Abercrombie dispatched Palafox as health director because he was unable to produce evidence supporting Abercrombie's repeated claims Obama was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center.
And while Slom did not respond to WND requests for reaction to Abercrombie's terse letter, the state senator has said he would be happy to use the Palafox case if it would permit him to open up to the public any birth records the Hawaii health department has on Obama.
"If Palafox serves as a shoehorn to get for the public any Obama birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has, I am all for doing so," he said. "I don't understand why Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep all his records from the public – not just his Hawaii birth records, but his passport records and his school records. All Obama's records should be public, including any Hawaii birth records that exist."
Why would you care anyway? You aren't an American citizen yourself.
