2600 in 2006

That's old news:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

 

By the way, McCain was born in Panama.

His mother, at least, was an american citizen so that makes him one as well. Same thing with McCain.

His mother, at least, was an american citizen so that makes him one as well. Same thing with McCain.

 

Under the laws in effect when he was born, Obama's mother would have had to have lived in the U.S. for at least five years after turning 14 for her son to receive citizenship at birth (if born outside the U.S. and fathered by a foreign national). If the claimed birthdates of Obama and his mother are accurate, she had not yet reached the age of 19, and thus Obama would not have been a natural-born citizen if born outside the U.S.

 

By the way, McCain was born in Panama.

 

As for McCain, both of his parents are U.S. citizens, and both had been resident in the U.S. prior to his birth. Under the laws enacted shortly after the Constitution was written, any person born of two natural-born or naturalized citizens of the United States is a natural-born citizen at birth, provided only that at least one of the parents has been a resident of the U.S. for at least some time prior to birth. I am unaware of any law that ever stated that such a person was not a natural-born citizen.

 

Incidentally, the natural-born citizenship requirement was as much about allegiance as geography. I wonder if there have ever been any Presidents who were not alive when the Constitution was ratified, whose parents weren't both U.S. citizens?

His mother, at least, was an american citizen so that makes him one as well. Same thing with McCain.

 

Under the laws in effect when he was born, Obama's mother would have had to have lived in the U.S. for at least five years after turning 14 for her son to receive citizenship at birth (if born outside the U.S. and fathered by a foreign national). If the claimed birthdates of Obama and his mother are accurate, she had not yet reached the age of 19, and thus Obama would not have been a natural-born citizen if born outside the U.S.

 

By the way, McCain was born in Panama.

 

As for McCain, both of his parents are U.S. citizens, and both had been resident in the U.S. prior to his birth. Under the laws enacted shortly after the Constitution was written, any person born of two natural-born or naturalized citizens of the United States is a natural-born citizen at birth, provided only that at least one of the parents has been a resident of the U.S. for at least some time prior to birth. I am unaware of any law that ever stated that such a person was not a natural-born citizen.

 

Incidentally, the natural-born citizenship requirement was as much about allegiance as geography. I wonder if there have ever been any Presidents who were not alive when the Constitution was ratified, whose parents weren't both U.S. citizens?

The mere fact that both of McCain's parents were natural-born citizens is not enough to qualify under the constitution with absolute certainty. The constitution simply doesn't say exactly what it means to be a natural-born citizen, but it's been accepted to mean someone born in the US to natural-born or naturalized citizens. There is no legal precedent for this either. I suspect this is why the question of citizenship for either candidate has been a minor issue.

The constitution simply doesn't say exactly what it means to be a natural-born citizen, but it's been accepted to mean someone born in the US to natural-born or naturalized citizens. There is no legal precedent for this either. I suspect this is why the question of citizenship for either candidate has been a minor issue.

 

I've never seen anything to indicate that a child born of two U.S. citizen parents who were out of the country on military business would ever have been regarded anything other than a natural-born citizen. If Obama was born in the U.S., the fact that his father was a foreign national would probably not disqualify him (the law is vague on the subject) but if he was born in Kenya, and the other facts of his birth are as he claims, there would be no legitimate basis of which I am aware for a claim of natural-born citizenship.

You are ignoring facts.

 

His BC has been posted online. If you don't believe it's legit, then call the Hawaii state office and ask them if what's been posted is an actual document.

 

They will tell you yes. You won't do that, so you don't believe me. I already know that.

 

The other quite salient fact you are ignoring is that he already has to pass FBI verifications for this kind of stuff to become even an Illinois State Senator, much less a US Senator. These verifications involve certain things like...proving your citizenship with legal documents.

 

Your 'bluster' comment reveals you're more about name calling than actual examination of facts.

His BC has been posted online. If you don't believe it's legit, then call the Hawaii state office and ask them if what's been posted is an actual document.

 

They have been asked. Citing confidentiality, they won't answer.

 

The other quite salient fact you are ignoring is that he already has to pass FBI verifications for this kind of stuff to become even an Illinois State Senator, much less a US Senator. These verifications involve certain things like...proving your citizenship with legal documents.

 

Really? Can you name anyone who has ever been denied a U.S. Senate, much less Illinois state senate, position as a result of a failed background check?

 

Your 'bluster' comment reveals you're more about name calling than actual examination of facts.

 

If Barack Obama were to send a notarized statement to the state of Hawaii authorizing it to officially state that he was born there, that would be great. Since he refuses to do so, nobody can confirm his eligibility.

Did you just copy & paste that entry from somewhere else? It sounds very familiar as if I've read it once before already.

The constitution simply doesn't say exactly what it means to be a natural-born citizen, but it's been accepted to mean someone born in the US to natural-born or naturalized citizens. There is no legal precedent for this either. I suspect this is why the question of citizenship for either candidate has been a minor issue.

 

I've never seen anything to indicate that a child born of two U.S. citizen parents who were out of the country on military business would ever have been regarded anything other than a natural-born citizen. If Obama was born in the U.S., the fact that his father was a foreign national would probably not disqualify him (the law is vague on the subject) but if he was born in Kenya, and the other facts of his birth are as he claims, there would be no legitimate basis of which I am aware for a claim of natural-born citizenship.

http://www.uslaw.com/library/Legal_Comment...php?item=191427

 

The author above is referencing a 1934 act of Congress under which McCain failed to qualify as a natural-born citizen through a legal technicality, making him a naturalized citizen.

 

Had he won the presidency, I don't think any court would have tried to challenge McCain's eligibility, however.

A frightening prospect since, were he to do so it would pave the way for others who really weren't eligible. That Obama would do such a thing suggests that he's really not a suitable person to be president, but I can't figure any more charitable explanation.

 

Can anyone else offer one?

Probably Obama follows a sinister plan to bring Arnie into presidency next time?

 

I agree, that's really frighting!

This whole thing is a mess.

 

Hawaii was a state when he was born, that's American Soil, and therefore he's a citizen, period. The other rules being brought up in these court cases, concerning residency, 5 years of citizenship, etc... are all used to determine citizenship if American Soil can't be demonstrated.

 

See Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

 

He's not even naturalized. He was BORN in Hawaii, when it was a state.

The author above is referencing a 1934 act of Congress under which McCain failed to qualify as a natural-born citizen through a legal technicality, making him a naturalized citizen.

 

Had he won the presidency, I don't think any court would have tried to challenge McCain's eligibility, however.

 

It would take considerable research to discover all the legal issues surrounding McCain's eligibility. Certainly the issue does appear more complicated than I realized. I did not vote for McCain in the primary (he was the person I least wanted to win), and would have favored a candidate whose legitimacy was clear beyond question. Nonetheless, I don't see how McCain's eligibility or lack thereof is relevant. The EC isn't apt to vote for him no matter what happens. What matters is whether Obama is eligible. If he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he is probably eligible even though the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't guarantee 'natural-born' status. If he would authorize the release of his birth records, and if they in fact show that he was born in Hawaii, the matter would be resolved. Why hasn't he authorized the release of at least enough information to confirm eligibility?

This whole thing is a mess.

 

That is is.

 

Hawaii was a state when he was born, that's American Soil, and therefore he's a citizen, period.

 

Hawaii is the state where he claims to have been born.

 

When I got a summer job twenty years ago, I had to show my employer proof of employment eligibility. I couldn't just tell my employer I was eligible, or give a photocopy of my IDs. I had to give the actual IDs to my employer.

 

It seems to me that being President of the United States is a more important job than packing boxes for mail-order shipment. Why should the former have stricter requirements for demonstrating eligibility than the latter?

 

The other rules being brought up in these court cases, concerning residency, 5 years of citizenship, etc... are all used to determine citizenship if American Soil can't be demonstrated.

 

American soil hasn't been demonstrated, at least not in any way that has been publicized. That's the problem. Hawaiian officials have said they have birth records on file for Obama, but they haven't stated where those records say he was born. Obama has released what he claims to be a scan of a Certification of Live Birth, but a photocopy of an ID wouldn't have been good enough for me twenty years ago, and an alleged scan of a document shouldn't be good enough today.

 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is going to have to come down with one of three rulings:

1. Obama has produced admissible evidence which demonstrates that he is a natural-born citizen, and he is eligible for office.
   
2. Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and is not eligible for office.
   
3. No petitioner has standing to challenge Obama's eligibility, so there is no need to determine whether he is a natural-born citizen.
   

Obama's lawyers are asking the court to reach decision #3. Should that not set off major alarm bells? If someone offers up reasons why he doesn't have to answer what should be a simple question, shouldn't anyone who's even moderately inquisitive suspect the person is hiding something?

The SCOTUS is going to aggregate these cases, and there are a few, rule indirectly on them, and move on. They will not legitimize this case, probably for #3 and lack of sufficient evidence, should #3 actually be met.

 

Frankly, if they did rule Obama out, there would be blood on the streets, and they won't risk that, unless the matters of law are freaking SOLID, and the EVIDENCE is more than a set of questions and really a plea for more public discovery than anything else. A whole lot of us remember them inserting themselves into OUR process in 2000 as well.

 

Won't happen. Trust me on that.

 

Actually, given the appointees on this court, I am a strong advocate for expanding it again, just to weed out the morons that currently sit on it.

 

There is a chain of people that tie Obama to Hawaii. Hawaii itself has the record, and it has been issued. This is all we need to know, barring some other evidence that actually boils down to more than some questions and confusion over existing law.

 

If it went farther than that, it would have been brought up way before now. There is an early vetting process that one goes through and Obama went through that.

 

And no. Obama is not hiding anything. I've no reason to suspect that. His background in law means he understands perfectly, and arguably better than any of us do, about the conditions of his run for office. Had there been a problem with those, he would not have ran.

 

Nobody likes a President not DULY elected. Just look at what we got out of 2000. No thanks.

 

Our process has it's problems, and the people are concerned about them. There is no way Obama would run, only to end up with the ugly mess that would arise from him running a successful campaign that deceived the people in this way.

 

I'm gonna out and say it:

 

There are a fraction of us, who have a serious problem with a black president. There are also a fraction of us, who want to see the GOP continue power for their own ends, and that same fraction believes that ends can justify means, and should be marginalized as a result. Both fractions are a very significant social problem. I don't know the solution, other than to just reinforce the idea that they are here*, and to keep things rational.

 

Obama is a rational, disciplined person, who has expressed NOTHING but a sincere interest in getting things running better again. On that, I agree with him. He was DULY elected, and therefore gets the same consideration I've granted EVERY president, even this last one.

 

These cases are nothing but sour grapes aimed at marginalizing his presidency. There is a lot of framing being done right now with the same goals.

 

None of this is productive. We need to let the man do his thing, then judge that result, just like we did with every other President. If we can grant this to the current President, we can absolutely grant it to Obama, and I personally expect nothing less. He might really suck, he might kick ass, he might be a marginal President. Won't know, unless we step up, give him the support, and see.

 

Again, we were asked to do this for Bush, and that was HARD. FUCKING HARD. So we can all do it now in like kind.

 

*not here on AA, but here, with us, as people. That's all.

There is a chain of people that tie Obama to Hawaii. Hawaii itself has the record, and it has been issued.

 

I am unaware of any public official going on record as saying both (1) he has seen Obama's birth record or a certified copy thereof (not a computer scan or other non-certified copy), and (2) such records show that Obama was born in the U.S. I'm aware of a Hawaiian official who has claimed to have seen the official records (but hasn't said what they contain), and many people claim Obama's records show he was born in the U.S. (but don't claim to have seen the official document or an actual certified copy). The official, however, hasn't really said anything about whether Obama was born in the U.S., and nobody who hasn't looked at original documents or certified copies thereof can really know what they contain.

 

As for Obama's vetting, it seems that everyone believes someone else has vetted Obama, but I'm unclear on who if anyone has actually done so.

I don't like everything about the post above... sorry.

 

There are some elements of the vetting that are not public. I don't like that very much. On the flip side, there are always a lot of people who would do bad things, so maybe there is some balance. Found this in my inbox about the SCOTUS case:

 

What with all the brouhaha about the (moronic) "Obama Citizenship" cases, time for a primer about how the Supreme Court and lawsuits work.

 

1. A federal case begins in a Federal District Court. The trial court hears the case and ultimately makes a final decision on it. Until there is a final decision, you cannot appeal (with very few exceptions). Common final decisions are:

 

A) A grant of a motion to dismiss, finding that the allegations in the complaint are not enough to state a cause of action. A subset of this is how the "Citizenship" cases were decided--in order to bring a case, you must have "standing"--this means you must show that you, personally, are being or will be harmed. If you lack standing, you can't pursue the case.

B) A grant of summary judgment, finding that after discovery, undisputed evidence shows that a claim is legally barred.

C) A judge or jury decision resolving the case after trial.

D) A grant or denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

 

If a case settles, there's no appeal (though there can be exceptions in criminal cases, where pleas subject to right to challenge evidentiary rulings sometimes occur).

 

What's next? After the flip.

 

* profmatt's diary :: ::

*

 

2. As of right, there is an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals must hear it. With the exception of certain types of cases (some tax cases and veterans cases, patent cases, and a few others), Circuits are geographical and regional. The Court of Appeals re-examines the case based primarily on briefs submitted by the parties. It does not hear evidence. Indeed, it can only overturn factual findings of a lower court if those findings are "clearly erroneous." (That's a very very high standard.) Circuit courts may also stay the District Court's ruling pending the appeal, and commonly do where the District Court's ruling requires action by a party (e.g., an order to stop selling certain products because they have been determined to infringe a patent, trademark, or copyright). The court may affirm (say the decision below was right), reverse (say the decision below was wrong), remand (say that the decision below failed to consider certain things and send it back for further consideration), or any combination thereof.

 

3. The losing party in the Circuit Court then has the right to appeal to SCOTUS. However, SCOTUS review is discretionary. While you have the right to petition for review (known to law-talkin'-folks as certorari or "cert"), SCOTUS can say "buzz off." SCOTUS recieves dozens, if not hundreds, of cert petitions a week, but only takes 60-80 cases a year on average. Indeed, many parties who have cert petitions filed against them simply file a waiver of response.

 

A party seeking emergency intervention must go first to their "Circuit Judge." The current Circuit Judge assignments are listed here. This means that if your case comes out of the 9th Circuit (West Coast), your application for emergency relief must be directed to Kennedy. The most common "emergency relief" applications are death penalty cases.

 

While one judge can grant an emergency stay, you need 5 votes to grant a full stay. Example--let's say a death case comes up in New York. Justice Ginsburg as Circuit Justice grants emergency stay. For that stay to be continued, she needs four other votes. Here's where it gets weird--while you need 5 votes for a stay, you need only 4 votes to hear a case. Hypothetically, it's possible that Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens all vote to hear the case and grant a stay. The case would thus be heard. Absent a stay, however, the prisoner will be executed (and the case mooted) before the court hears the case. In prior years, there'd be a judge that would swing to grant a stay in such circumstances, but this has not been common in recent years. (The closest we have to that currently is Justice Kennedy.)

 

So what's actually happening with the citizenship case? Plaintiff sought injunctive relief in a District Court. Not only was his injunctive relief denied, but his case was dismissed for lack of standing. He appealed it to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. He filed a cert petition and emergency relief petition to Souter. Souter denied it. He then tried to present it to Thomas. Thomas said "we'll deal with it at a cert conference, but I'll ask it go on the next conference, on the off chance that someone expresses interest, since your case would be moot if we pushed it back further." This afternoon, the Justices will meet for a routine conference to deal with the cert petitions. This case almost certainly won't even be specifically mentioned, but simply added to the long list of "denials" that issue. There won't be four votes to grant cert, much less five votes to grant a stay. An order to that effect will issue Monday or Tuesday.

 

 

 

 

Looks to me like it's #3, meaning we deal, or somebody does some more in-depth discovery to bring a case with standing and merit.

There are some elements of the vetting that are not public. I don't like that very much.

 

Countless disasters throughout history have occurred because nobody took responsibility for some essential task. All of the people who could have taken responsibility believed that someone else would do so, with the net effect that the task never got done.

 

Yes, it seems absurd that a candidate would get this far without someone actually confirming that he's eligible, but all indications I've seen are that many of the people and agencies who could have checked his eligibility have stated that it's not their responsibility. I've seen nothing to indicate that anyone has actually checked.

 

As for the issue of standing, the Constitution doesn't say "No person shall become President who is not a natural-born citizen, unless nobody is found to have standing to challenge him." It says that no person who is not a natural born citizen (and was not a resident of the US before 1789) shall become President, period. To the extent that the rules of standing would contradict the Supreme Law of the Land, the latter should have priority.

 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to swear in each incoming President. He would be forbidden by the Constitution from swearing in someone who was not eligible. Would not his own oath to uphold the Constitution require that he make sure anyone who appears before him to be sworn in is actually eligible for office, at least in any situation where there might be any basis for doubt?

I don't get it.

 

The birth records were shared. The state of Hawaii confirmed they issued them. The court case is gonna get tossed.

 

He's eligible. That's it.

 

There is no indication we are headed for disaster, that might be avoided, if we just not elect this guy. There is no Obama doom on the horizon. In fact, there is absolutely nothing that suggests that guy will be a bad President at all!

 

I've watched this with interest over the whole election. In previous elections, it was about this matter or that policy, or the usual stuff. Some people made it about money, others sex, still others religion, you name it. That's the stuff we debate right? Somebody comes out of that the winner, and we are all supposed to step up, see that democracy has moved us forward, lend our support and see how it all goes.

 

That's what I did in 2000. I absolutely knew I was gonna disagree with court justice picks, foreign policy, domestic policy, pretty much the whole deal. But, not agreeing with how it goes down, doesn't mean the end of the world. Sometimes it means we were wrong, and that going down the other road kicked a lot of ass. Sadly, we didn't see that this time. Wish we had though.

 

This election though was different. I came from a small town. Kind of a redneck town. It was flat out asked: "Are you gonna vote for the black guy?" One clown I grew up with responded, "No, just the white half!". This was ugly, but it happened. Happened more than I thought it would.

 

I think it's still happening!

 

Now, instead of voting, which is over and done, it's about supporting. "Are we gonna trust the black guy?". And we go down that road a ways. Maybe we go a bit farther, and we get to "He's not one of us!", and so it all goes... "will he make us pay for all the stuff we did to Black people?". (Yes, I got asked that one! Can you believe it?)

 

There is lots of trouble if you go looking for it man. Always is. Doesn't matter where you stand, or what you stand for. There are others willing to entertain the worst of thoughts and feed on that and marginalize the good things.

 

I'm not buying any of it. I like what I see, and I see no reason to believe it isn't the real deal. Sometimes this happens! We get somebody who just wants to step up and really do it right. I think that is exactly what drives Obama and it's something we seriously need right now. Given the problems we face, and to some degree those the world faces, it's damn good to feel some hope and see that maybe things can get better, that there is progress and the whole warm fuzzy deal.

 

"Yes we can!" packs one hell of a punch now, don't you think! Another whole class of people now knows that yes, they in fact, can. It's cool! Love it.

 

Most of the world loves it. My oldest adopted Black son loves it.

 

Sorry, but I can't entertain this tin-foil stuff. There will be time to start putting the hammer on Obama, but now is not that time. He's got to build his administration, and start leading. Then we see where he takes us.

 

If it sucks? Well? Then we bring the hammer down and get to work, just like we do for any President that sucks, but that time is not now. Now is the time to be happy we have a new President, that the decision was decisive instead of being a cluster fuck, and to think about what it all might mean going forward.

The birth records were shared. The state of Hawaii confirmed they issued them. The court case is gonna get tossed.

Why does nobody actually look at what officials actually say? I am unaware of any statement by any Hawaiian official stating that the records on file bear any relation whatsoever to what Barack Obama posted on his web site. Can you point me to one?

 

What state of Hawaii stated is that Obama's birth records are on file. From what I understand, there are a number of ways a person's birth records can be on file in a state without the person having been physically born there. For example, if an American couple adopts a child from China, I would expect the state where the child was adopted would keep a copy of the Chinese certificate on file and under seal, and issue the adoptive parents a birth certificate in their name. That would certainly seem more logical than asking the Chinese government to issue a birth certificate to the adoptive couple.

 

If Hawaii has filed birth records for any people born overseas in the early 1960's, it would hardly seem unreasonable to want a statement making clear that Obama isn't such a person.

 

He's eligible. That's it.

Why doesn't he seek to have a court affirmatively find him eligible then, rather than finding that nobody has the right to challenge him? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?

 

If I go into the bar and I'm asked for ID, when younger people aren't, I don't try to argue that I shouldn't have to show ID. I simply get out my ID and show it. If I did try to argue that I shouldn't have to show ID, any doubts the bartender had about my age would be magnified, not diminished.

 

Obama has his doubters calling upon him to prove them wrong. Should not he receive greatest satisfaction by doing precisely that? The most charitable explanation I can figure for Obama's behavior is that he likes playing games and thumbing his nose at the Constitution. Legally, not a disqualifying factor, but hardly one to inspire confidence.

He showed a legal copy of his birth record. It's published. Do I need to go look for it?

 

He met the same burden anyone else had to meet. His birth record is in the public record now.

 

As a result, the burden is now on those who don't buy it. Seek and either ye shall find, or not, but it's really not Obama's deal anymore. This is why he published it. This is why anybody running for high office publishes things. When they don't publish them, that's when we have trouble.

 

The legal certificate he showed, is the positive statement. I've got one on file, as do you. That's enough, unless somebody brings evidence to the contrary. To entertain otherwise is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and it's harassment. (go look it up) This is why we have legal documents. They are vetted, and given to people just so we don't have to deal with this crap.

 

We are a innocent until proven guilty nation. That is what puts the burden on those who don't buy it, not the other way around. Knowing this and acting on it is not arrogance, nor is it thumbing down the Constitution. In fact, it's taking advantage of it, just as any citizen would. If we did things your way, nobody would have any peace, as they would spend all their time making positive assertions to anybody who felt they needed one. That could be abused easily too.

 

So, we produce the document, they see it, believe it or not and that's their call, but the law is clear on the matter. Burden met, no discrimination is legal then, unless some other facts are brought into play, see court review, and that document then is invalidated.

 

If anybody doesn't believe he's an American, then it's clearly up to them to post up or shut up. Anyone willing to entertain this crap then legitimizes it, and that's a losing position. I wouldn't do it, and would not expect Obama to do it.

 

That is how it works here. Sorry.

 

This is also the explanation for his behavior. Nobody entertains this crap when they have the high ground. There is no reason to. It's not productive, and it potentially could lead to some other losing position.

 

You don't have confidence because you don't want to have it. It's really that simple. And that is your right, no question there. Projecting that onto Obama doesn't lend credence to your points of discussion however.

 

Something to think about.

Here you go.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...ficate-part-ii/

 

Note, the official in that article did assert that is a valid certificate. That connects Obama to the record in Hawaii.

 

You can also go here:

 

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

 

At the root of that site are Obama's responses to everything asked here and in most other places I see this.

 

The guy published, others fact checked, and what's left is a bunch of people who don't want to have confidence. I can't help you with that, but to link to some good info, and leave you with:

 

It might be a good idea to solidly substantiate any allegations you might have against the President Elect, before airing them in a public forum where you may find your subsequent queries marginalized.

 

This, by the way, is the exact same response I got when questioning the validity of the Bush election in 2000. So, I did the right thing, dealt like everyone else eventually does, and supported him as President, until his own actions no longer warranted said support.

 

Seriously. You can nut up and do the exact same thing here.

He showed a legal copy of his birth record. It's published. Do I need to go look for it?

 

Take a photocopy or a home-computer printout of your birth certificate to the DMV. Do you think they'll accept it?

 

Note, the official in that article did assert that is a valid certificate. That connects Obama to the record in Hawaii.

 

What did she say:

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

 

Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

 

Doesn't sound like a terribly strong assertion to me. Why might it be impossible for them to be able to say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents? If they could identify the image as a fair and accurate copy of Obama's records, they would know that's what the image represented. That they cannot identify the image as a fair and accurate copy of the records doesn't mean it's fake (without a valid reason for accessing the records, they wouldn't be able to verify the image's authenticity) but their statement is hardly a proof of legitimacy.

 

It might be a good idea to solidly substantiate any allegations you might have against the President Elect, before airing them in a public forum where you may find your subsequent queries marginalized.

 

When you apply for a job, is the onus on your employer to prove that you're an illegal alien, or is the onus on you to prove that you're not?

 

When you apply for a drivers' license, is the onus on the state to prove that you weren't born when you claim, or is the onus on you to prove that you were?

 

Barack Obama is seeking the most important job in the world. Is there any reason that ascending presidents shouldn't be required to demonstrate eligibility as a matter of course? Not a demonstration to the level of "the registrar thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it", but something more like "the document is a fair and accurate copy of the information in our files."

 

What is it about Obama that makes people think the former and latter declarations are equivalent? It's bizarre.

From the article linked above:

 

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us."

 

That's it. Done.

 

They e-mailed the copy they had, and that named spokesperson from the Hawaii Department of Health, confirmed it's valid. Others have done this too. Do I need to go and look those up as well?

 

See how this works now?

 

On the Job, the onus is on the Employer to make sure they don't just hire people. They have to check a potential new employees eligibility to work. Some employers do more than others, but all are required to make sure they are hiring legal workers. That is the law.

 

Of course, the workers need to demonstrate that, and that is the law too.

 

Lucky for us, the state facilitates this, by providing us with documents that verify this fact, so that each transaction we engage in does not go through courts all the time. If the state provides a legal document, copy or not, just a legal document, that meets the burden of the employer, then both parties need only look at the document to meet their respective burdens, and the law is satisfied.

 

In fact, if a potential employee having shown the documents (and a birth certificate copy, like the one shown above is one of those documents) to an employer, finds that employer needs more proof, they could then take the employer to court on the basis of discrimination. That is the law too. It's basically there to stop people from trying to question the state.

 

The state of Hawaii is the authority in this. They verified the document. That's it.

 

In this instance, again, Obama has published those things necessary to verify his American citizenship. Therefore; barring any new information that may contradict those things, the matter is closed. If any of the stuff that's been tossed about actually was new information, we would see successful legal motions in courts, press reporting on those, and a burden on Obama to refute those.

 

You have a statement, by a named official, in the public record, that speaks to the validity of the certificate copy so published. It's only valid if the information contained in it is valid, and it's form is valid. So then, their confirmation validates both of those things, without introducing any new information. And that's the way it should be.

 

Now, do you have ANYTHING that might actually contradict the State of Hawaii in this matter

 

,or

 

are you just looking to discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender, or some other thing?

 

BTW: I'm not implying that you are. I am just highlighting where the reasoning takes me. Also, did a quick re-read of the article above, and the only thing Hawaii could not confirm is the image itself. Again, the form and content was valid. Whether or not, that is an actual scan of a valid copy was not verified. In any case, that question is moot, unless information is brought to the table that would invalidate the record of the State of Hawaii.

 

Another edit: After having thought about it for a bit. I'm not sure anyone from the State of Hawaii could make that verification. A scan isn't something we can chain back to the document in a legally binding way. Could scan front from one and back from another. Could be the scanner distorts the image some how. Lossy compression could do the same. Stuff stuck to either the document or scanner then could present as a contradictory image.

 

That's about as good as it gets, and thus the conclusion reached at the end of the piece I linked to. What is reasonable?

 

It's the same dilemma you posed with the employer.

 

Say the document the potential employee presented to the employer was damaged somehow. The employer then has standing to ask for better proof. They do after all want to comply with the law, as it's there to protect everybody. The employee, noting the damage, could also see that's an issue, and obtain a better quality document.

 

Of course, the employer could make a phone call too, combine that with photo ID and call it good.

 

Reasonable right?

 

So then, in this matter, I think it's safe to say Obama has done what is reasonable, and that's the crux of the matter isn't it?

 

And that leaves me with my earlier conclusion. You don't have confidence because you don't want to. Sufficient information exists to establish such a confidence. Up to you to process it, and either you do or don't. Your call. However, you go on that, it's absolutely not a burden on Obama to meet whatever expectations people have that extend outside the boundaries of the law.

 

Further, it is mutually agreed that our current legal boundary for these things is sufficient, or we would see these matters litigated regularly, thus warranting reform. No such movement for reform exists to a degree that brings it credence at this time.

 

We then must agree to disagree. Unless new information is presented that would warrant some legal challenge to the facts we have at hand, this boils down to a personal matter of trust in the process and the people involved in it.

Of course, the employer could make a phone call too, combine that with photo ID and call it good.

 

Reasonable right?

 

So then, in this matter, I think it's safe to say Obama has done what is reasonable, and that's the crux of the matter isn't it?

 

If a prospective employee tried to do everything in his power to prevent the employer from making that phone call, shouldn't that raise suspicions far above any the employer might otherwise have had? No matter how much the prospective employee's protests claimed "discrimination"?

 

It is impossible to meaningfully proclaim a document genuine based merely upon a scan thereof. Anyone with even a modicum of Photoshop skill could take a real certificate, scan it at 2400dpi, clone the background over any inconvenient text, and then replace the text with whatever they want, all at 2400dpi. A little care might be required with letter spacing, but nothing difficult. Experiment at different resolutions until the letter spacing of re-created original text matches the original document, then change the text and measure the spacing of that. Convert those measurements to 2400dpi and place letters appropriately. An examination of the document at 2400dpi would show the fraud pretty easily, but if the document were down-converted to 300dpi, all traces of forgery would be lost in the JPEG artifacts. It wouldn't require a massive conspiracy. Just a computer geek who wouldn't mind helping Obama cover over some pesky little details about his past.

 

If someone were to send a Hawaii spokesman who didn't know anything of Obama's claimed birth details Obama's certificate along with a few others that were forged (competently) to show different data, how would the spokesman be able to tell which was genuine? Obviously only one could be.

 

If Barack Obama wanted the issue laid to rest, he could have called the Hawaii officials and asked them to make a clear and unequivocal statement: "Hawaii has birth records on file which clearly and unambiguously establish that Obama was born there prior to January 19, 1974, and no records on file which would indicate he was born elsewhere or at a later date." [nb: if he was born after January 19, 1974, but were otherwise eligible, then the Twentieth Amendment ratified in 1993 would make Joseph Biden acting President until Barack Obama's 35th birthday; if Barack stonewalled the release of any information to unequivocally establish his eligibility prior to Jan. 20 and the government wanted to uphold the Constitution, Joseph Biden would be acting President until such time as Barack Obama released the information, whereupon Obama could act as President].

Obama doesn't need to validate this crap.

 

This is a classic losers debate move. If he entertains this crap, then he lends credence to it. Losing position. Better to let the facts stand, and the law stand behind them, and let people say what they will.

 

Most people, given the scenario here and the facts at hand, would conclude Obama has met his burden, leaving the rest to just be idle talk, and that's exactly all this is. That's not "doing everything possible to prevent that phone call". It is, tabling what is not a rational discussion so that it's not validated and more of a PITA than it needs to be.

 

Here's the thing. For Obama the matter is closed. For the officials that matter (State of Hawaii, FBI, et al.) the matter is closed. The courts have not been shown anything that would open the matter, so therefore the matter is simply closed. For us citizens, this means the matter is closed.

 

For you, it's an open discussion, but that's you and your deal. It's open because you want it to be open, not because it should be open, and that's the difference!

 

Your analogy is not a valid comparison. All that has been done is the boundaries of the law have been honored. Enough information was published and verified to close the matter. That's all anybody deserves, BARRING SOME NEW INFORMATION that opens the matter for further discussion. NO SUCH INFORMATION exists, therefore the queries for more and more and more information, because we just don't want to believe this guy could be president, for whatever goofy reason, will not be answered.

 

Why won't they be answered?

 

Our discussion here is a case in point.

 

Because you don't want to have enough confidence in this matter, the matter is not closed. Enough information exists on this thread to have such a confidence, yet you ask for more and more and more and more.

 

So, there comes a time where it's no longer REASONABLE to provide said info. It's not REASONABLE, because no evidence exists that you will ever have such a confidence! The why is another discussion. For now, I'm simply stating that I see no return on investment of information and discussion, in the form of you either:

 

1. reaching a point of acceptance in the matter, ie: you are simply wrong about it

 

,or

 

2. providing some NEW INFORMATION that validates your position, thus warranting further discussion. ie: told you so!

 

And that's where it sits. Either produce some NEW INFORMATION that opens the matter, or work on acceptance of the state of the matter. All up to you.

 

Sorry man. It is what it is.

 

Edit: You also continue to focus on the unprovable as some evidence that you could be right in this. The scan published to us is not provable. We both know that. However, it's form and content have been validated. A record like that exists, and it exists in that form, and it exists with that content.

 

Say I was wondering if somebody was born somewhere. I could produce a document like this, then ask if it's valid right? If they said yes, then the form and content of the document is valid. My "copy" or reproduction of it is not a legal copy however. So then, the document is not direct proof as in "prima facia" evidence as it's not legally vetted. That is what we have on the web, and what a lot of us have in personal files here and there.

 

Our employers, for example, would take a copy of an original. Their copy is not legal, however it does capture the form and content of the record, so they can demonstrate their compliance with the law.

 

It's not REASONABLE to expect that everybody who wants to see a valid, legal copy, to do so. What do you need to happen here? Does the guy have to come up to you, shake your hand, bring his family and friends still alive, an attorney, legal copies of everything, and sit down at the table and go through the chain of events from start to finish?

 

Not REASONABLE.

 

Now, let's flip it around. To believe he's not eligable to be President, there would have to exist a coordinated conspiracy involving the officials in several departments in the State of Hawaii, Federal involvement all over the place, FBI, CIA, SS, etc... and extreme complacency on the part of the press, and direct involvement from the press regarding those statements that assert his eligibility.

 

That burden is absolutely HUGE my friend! It's not rational, it didn't happen, it's not plausible.

 

I leave you again, with either acceptance (and that's on your terms of course, I can't help you with that), or a burden to bring NEW INFORMATION to light that opens the matter.

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I went through this with Bush. To me, it's clear we got hosed in 2000. The guy was Selected, not Elected. And put that into the context of the last 8 years and you have one pissed off potatohead! Took me quite a while, but I finally came to acceptance on how the process works and my place in it.

 

So then, I began to work where I could make a difference, and that was productive and I feel a lot better about most of those things. Looking back, I think many of us were lazy, and had we worked just a bit harder (court games or not), Bush would not have made it in 2000 and things would be very different today.

 

I was wrong then to focus on the SCOTUS and their $%(#*&$%#$% decision. The right thing to do was explore WHY that decision got there and WHAT to do about THAT. So it follows that better involvement in political matters was not only warranted, but mandatory, if we were to see the potential for significant change and improvement put back on the table.

 

Obama was elected in a decisive manner, leaving the courts out of it, and the process worked. Many came to the same conclusion I did, clearly.

 

We may not agree politically. That's cool! I like you, so I will offer this post in the best of ways.

 

Surrender this. The guy is President, he was duly elected, he can serve as any American citizen can, because he is an American citizen.

 

Channel your advocacy and your passion into those things that actually exhibit the potential for improving the state of those things you feel passionate about. The world will be better because of it. You will grow stronger because of it too.