Chicagoist: Obama Nominates Richardson, Faces Citizenship Status Challenge

DanDeirdorf

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:34:24 -0600

Hawaii Revised Statute §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health. (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record: (1) The registrant; (2) The spouse of the registrant; (3) A parent of the registrant; (4) A descendant of the registrant; (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant; (6) A legal guardian of the registrant; (7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant; (8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate; (9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; (10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents; (11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony; (12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and (13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy. (c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made. (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public. (e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year. (f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct. (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy; (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities; (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization; (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

johnadams

Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:47:57 -0600

In order to bring clarity to the issue of the Hawaiian birth certificate issue. Please read pages 7-11. This has an example of the form to request a Birth Certificate./Certificate of Live Birth or a Certification of Live Birth. It also explains the difference. Obama could fill out the form, pay $10.00 and obtain a certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, shown as an example here, that would include the name of the hospital, etc. http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf

AntonioSosa

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:04:15 -0600

Americans were FOOLED. Almost everything about Obama is FAKE, including possibly his birth certificate. The Obama image was manufactured by a very expensive campaign, financed with hundreds of millions of dollars, donated largely by U.S. enemies such as George Soros. The mainstream media hid important facts and presented only the Obama image they wanted Americans to buy. Informed Americans have been concerned for months that Obama may not meet Constitutional requirements to be president, but the media has kept the issue hidden. Even the Russians have been discussing the subject, while brainwashed Americans act as if they just heard about it! Brainwashed by the media, Americans became as foolish as the most ignorant Venezuelans, Bolivians and Ecuadorians who believed in CHANGE and YES WE CAN and now see that CHANGE means change toward Marxism, loss of freedom and rights, and greater poverty, despair and corruption. And YES WE CAN means Marxists like Castro, Chavez and Obama CAN fool people It seems Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov was right when he warned that, through media manipulation, Americans would be brainwashed and would allow their country to be taken over by Marxists: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1 If Obama does not meet Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President, the Court must decertify the election. Americans have the right to be protected from Marxists planted by U.S. enemies to destroy us.

mikely1

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:46:33 -0600

All these new commenters are probably the same nutjob agenda goon. Chicagoist may be able to confirm that.

Karl Klockars

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:44:18 -0600

TL; DR I think you guys are mistaking this site for PrisonPlanet and the Hannity forums.

UTV

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:46:51 -0600

Oh, the wonders of the Internet. It wasn't that long ago that all these new posters would have toiled in obscurity, clacking out these half-baked missives on banged-up Remington typewriters in a mountain compound somewhere. Now conspiracy-laden right-wing screeds are available at a touch with my morning coffee. Yay.

UtahBill

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:30:02 -0600

I am sure the Supreme Court accept this argument Team Obama response: 'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision' Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty' I army called up 20,000 troops on monday to stationed with the United States, get ready for a stay !

badka2ma

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:02:55 -0600

hank lots of info that really need to be relayed to these koolaid drinkers. excellent. i have a super good question. remember the last election? remember when the question of mr. bush's status with the air national guard was brought up? remember all those documents from 30 freaking years ago that were found? remember the months and months the media crammed it down our throats so that we wouldn't vote for him? remember the way the made bush into a big party guy and said he did drugs? WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY NOW? Barrack Hussein Obama is an admitted FELON!!!!! He was a cocaine user admittedly. This man in a little more than a month may take the oath to lead our nation. if there is any question. ANY QUESTION AT ALL! that this man may not be either born here or even a citizen, it should be his burden of proof to provide the evidence that he is. if the supremes do not hear this case and force him to plunk down the proof, we are lost. i hate the liberal agenda. i am totally conservative. however, a foreigner cannot take the office of POTUS. no matter what party. no matter what idea sets he may have. BHO and all after him must provide evidence of their citizenship beyond a doubt. the framers are rolling! rolling in their graves!

Obama debunked

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:06:39 -0600

Excellent posts Hank!! You almost have to post lots of information for people to read because most of the media and journalists sure as hell aren't doing their job!! You get on these blogs and the BO supporters just don't want to believe anything BAD about their Messiah and want to call anyone that half believes this 'conspiracy' crazy so you kind of have to educate them on everything that they don't know. Can't blame em though because, like I said, the mainstream media is totally in the tank fo BO!! To me, I think, like the Donofrio case is asking, they should make ALL the pres. candidates show their original BC's just to make it fair. I know McCain showed his original so, make the rest of them do it too! The main simple facts that keep slapping me in the face are these; Why has BO spent over $500,000 of our tax dollars to dismiss this issue instead of the $12 to end all of this specualtion??!! He hasn't just hired lawyers, HE HAS HIRED WHOLE LAW FIRMS!! This issue was brought up years ago by a man named Andy Martin, then, I know Hillary brought it up in Jan. of this year so, he finally produced a "copy" online about June. After 4 months of research by a man with a PhD. and 20 years experience in Instructional Media and specializes in computer graphics ,that document has been proven to be fake. Why would he do that? What has he got to hide from the American people? It has to make you wonder, why is Obama making this possibly worse than it is by NOT producing the document? Maybe it has nothing to do with his citizenship but who is real father or mother was for that fact. All he is doing is making this drag on and on and on.....HE COULD END IT ALL WITH $12!!! HELL, I WILL EVEN FLOAT HIM THE $12 LOAN IF THAT WOULD HELP(with interest of course :)

HankRand

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:06:41 -0600

First, I own the "faucet" spelling error. I'm pretty sure it's not the only one, either. Second, I know I posted a lot...too much for most...but understand, I read the same drivel over and over and over and over again. The same 5 refutations, over and over. From our "JOURNALISTS" no less. "He posted it on his website", "Factcheck proved it", "The state of Hawaii said he was born there", "There was a birth announcement in a Hawaiian paper", "Judges dismissed the case...as frivolous." I'm a sales guy. 31 years old, D student, NO BUSINESS having to inject myself in this. "Well then do us all a favor, and DON'T Hank!" Yeah, yeah...blow it out your.... This is the first season I really found myself drawn to the various political climates. And I found myself supporting Obama. Not by default, but because his ability to effectively communicate a message - seemed so exceptional, that it alone warranted viability for a successful leader. But then certain, very valid questions started coming up. And his explanations were laughable. And just when I'm sure he was licked, the media and other supporters only flocked to him with that much more ferocity. I guess my point is, while I'm puttin quite a bit out there, there is no short way to undo everything the media and blind, blanketed enthusiasm of his supporters have either ignorantly or deceptively offered up as it relates to this man's alleged infallible existence. And I'm pissed that I HAVE to do it. "You don't Hank. Your time could be better spent watching paint dry." Again, hilarious...but unfair and more importantly, off point. It's not my f'ing job. My job is pushing software. The blackout is bad, but the offering up of absolutely false information...is much, much worse. And I can't let it slide. And it will probably be worthless, in the end. It probably won't matter. But like I said, I just can't sit back and do nothing. I was never awake to politics and the role the media plays in our political climate, before. It's an awakening I would not wish on my worst enemy. It's just absolutely unbelievable to me. It's not a birth certificate, it's a certification. Hawaii's own standards deem the certification effectively moot for validation purposes. The state of Hawaii never said he was born there. They said a certificate of live birth exists for him, and they are in possession of it. The origin, not likely by accident, remains unanswered. Factcheck debunked ITSELF several times, on this very issue...as did all the sites who followed their lead, logic and supporting criteria. A birth announcement in a paper, candidly means dick. The technicality by which various judges have uniformly chosen to dismiss this, should be a story all by itself...regarding who has standing to ask that the contract "We The People" be upheld. But aside from that injustice, there are no meritorious decisions that have been offered and/or set as precedent. There are quicker ways to say it, but what I try to offer is a fair, honest and factual snapshot (yes, "snapshot") of what's really happened throughout this entire debacle. And a reluctant "web poster", who typically has much better things to do with his time, I'm unaware of any unwritten rules about copying and pasting, or any other expectations. All I know is, it SUCKS for me to be stuck watching so many half-truths get so much credibility. And I'm tired of having to correct these goose-stepping jerkoffs. So I copy and paste the most fair, clear and grounded piece I've been able to articulate. Read it or don't. The web is a big enough place for the truth though, no matter how many people wish it would go away.

Scooter Libbby

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:58:06 -0600

Hank posted way too much crap to read, but I did see this line: "State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." Well, Obama himself certainly does "have a tangible interest in the vital record." So why doesn't he ask for & get a copy of the original & post it? That would end the entire mess! Or would it? And I voted for him.

Ward Up

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:18:28 -0600

Hank, though abusing the unofficial cut and paste allowance, makes some very good points. I love that computer print-out of "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii. I could make that on my computer in about five minutes. Here's a simple point. If a kid signs up for Little League Baseball, he has to show his birth certificate. Can't we, then, expect that a presidential candidate also produce HIS birth certificate, especially when legitimate doubts are raised? Or how about, at the very least, a photocopy of the birth certificate? "Sorry," we are told. "That's private." But it's not too "private" to be required of Little Leaguers. Oh, and we know darn well why the Obamedia hasn't covered this story. Personally, I don't want to throw out the election results. Obama is president. The horses have already left the barn. However, this situation is worthe discussing because it illustrates the willingness of the Obama-bedazzled public and the Obamedia to ignore facts and in the media's case, abandon the search for and reporting of the facts. After all, they had a Messiah to elect!

Marcus Gilmer

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:37:08 -0600

You misspelled "faucet," Hank.

HankRand

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:25:50 -0600

I'm copying and pasting because I work MY OWN day job. Doing yours, and the jobs of your peers, has become exhausting. If that's your intention in posting the same half-truths every chance your supposed journalistic integrity starts to feel your Messiah's credibility is being threatened, congrats. If it's not, and if you HONESTLY believe the half-truths you have posted, and no doubt absorbed as your peers posted virtually the same misinformation...then I would implore you to slow down for a minute and read this in it's entirety. And why persist? Forget about what the implications of having a usurper hold what would ultimately and, by law, be a synthethic seat in the most powerful position in the world...how about character? How about the lack of integrity from a man who MAY HAVE defrauded our entire nation, people and process? I know most of you don't care. You're goose-steppers, packed with entitlement and more hellbent on "winning" than succeeding. But that's a huge reason why our country has fallen so short, so significantly, in the first place. I was a supporter at first, making phone calls on his behalf. But the kool aid just didn't make it's way to my fawcett. As I started to see very real questions come up, and the laughable explanations he'd give that I was sure would cost him media and constituent-based support...only serve to send other supporters deeper in the tank for him, it made me take a step back. And I couldn't help but look from the other side. And as this eligibility issue came up, which I too thought was quashed long ago, I began to notice that what I was watching was nothing short of furious, blind support, and a near complete control of information...or rather, propaganda. Frankly, it freaked me out. It's just weird. I began to notice that people are so proud of their blanket enthusiasm and fiery rejection of anything that might work negatively against this man. This is not healthy. From a global performance standpoint, our nations problems start at the grass roots level. From a political standpoint, I am watching that same blind entitlement and complacency creep in by way of our votes and media. I had my issues with BO, slowly but surely, as a free-minded person with individual thought. Most of those concerns were subjective in nature. This, however, is a very real and objective question. There are a variety of very real circumstances in which is he ineligible to be the POTUS. But, the few who discuss it are subject to ridicule by the few who refute it...while the blackout on the matter has left the majority of Americans completely unaware it is even occurring. Many are sure he did nothing wrong. Many are sure he did. None of us have that answer though...and only he can provide it. His actions so far have satisfied the media who lust after him, but any thinking person who has been able to retain individual discretion in their thought processes, has no doubt that the question exists. If he can answer it, he should...and garner the support, not of all of us, but of many of us. If he can't answer it, and he really does care about our nation, he should lead by example, step down, own his mistake and accept the consequences. Integrity escapes many of us all too often. Not unlike a child will learn his parents hatred or abuse, so will a nation embrace the dumbing down of integrity. We are already spoiled and entitled at the grass roots level. Other nations out-perform us because of our own complacency. Like an addict, we must hit rock bottom. And if it takes an ineligible POTUS who defrauded his way to the White House for that to happen, on our watch, so be it. But just as I'd strive not to enable an addict friend, so I will strive not to enable a complacent nation. There is an issue here. The most simple logic demonstrates that. We have blown it up in to a series of essays, lawsuits, websites, counter punches and insults...but none of that would be possible if the issue didn't exist. Again, as stated above, only Barack Obama can quell it entirely. Dissent, like competition, breeds progress and improvement. There are much more subjective matters for us to be engaging in healthy, forward-progress laiden debate over. But asking those of us who, in a very grounded manner, are able to recognize that a question does exist...to simply "let it go"...is unacceptable. It is too big of an issue (not just of Constitutionality, but of character) to simply grant yet another pass on. Quelling this for many (not all, but many) requires such a simple maneuver for his part. His failure to do so only means he's guilty or eager to divide us. And as this gets swept under the rug, as it likely will, those of us left disenfranchised will spend the next 4-8 years likely entirely disengaged from the process, and absolutely distant of support for him or those who revel in his "light". And while many will smirk and say "Good", the reality is, we are all AMERICANS. We engage in heated debate, but stand together. Our next prospective POTUS has a very real opportunity to incite unity and quell division, but as a first order of business - is choosing not to. Who among us can truly applaud that? _______________ "Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?" Of course he is, dummy.. "But how do you know?" Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket. "That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...." The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me. "Yeah, I'm sure you're right...." Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently. "Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website." Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ). So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter. "That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?" I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look: Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i." Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so. "Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!" I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all. "Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud." Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper. "Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous." Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008). I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight? "Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?" I have no idea. As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document. There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President. "Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color. Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation? The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be

happyfunball

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:56:45 -0600

Well, seeing as how it's over, I guess I can finally talk about it. I was a member of Obama's web team. And the vast majority of my time and effort spent from Feb. to Nov. was playing "Whack-A-Mole" with every crazy rumor, chain e-mail, or tasteless joke sent out way via YouTube, Myspace, and Facebook. "Doesn't say the pledge of allegiance"? Sorry, here's video of him leading the Senate in the pledge. "The Book of Revelation predicted the Antichrist would be a secret muslim!" Swung on and missed. It's kind of a fact that Islam was founded hundreds of years AFTER John wrote the Book of Revelation. And there's the problem with the fact Obama is Christian. Anyway, this birth certificate thing was especially annoying. And when you consider his opponent was born in PANAMA! I can't write all the things I WANTED to do when I got it, but I just rolled my eyes, sent them a link to fightthesmears.com and moved on to the next wacky spam in my inbox.

techla

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:17:04 -0600

I'll leave you hippies with this last bit of info...I think it is relevant to the discussion, and found on wikipedia in it's entry for natural born citizen: "However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795." George Washington...hmm. So what? Who is he? Where does get nerve? All high 'n' mighty...what a clown. That's what he is. Like anyone cares what that powder wigged fairy had to say. LOL! It's been fun, have a great night, homies.

techla

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:06:55 -0600

Are you one of those right wing nuts who still thinks freedom of speech is a GOOD thing??? His pick for Attorney General for starters. Holder once said: "The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at." REasonable restrictions? Sounds like the change we need, and we need it now. We need restrictions to keep crazy kids from learning how to do bad things, like Columbine. Take another sip of the kool aid, it's your favorite, the red kind :)

Navin

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:51:59 -0600

The internet will soon be controlled thanks to Obama and Co. At least we can all take comfort in that. How so? What's the basis for your statement?

techla

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:48:03 -0600

"McCain was born in Panama. Does that make him Panamanian? Does that mean he was not a natural born citizen,despite the fact that he was born to citizens? Do we have to go back and rerun the election as Hillary vs. Mitt?" Good question. IMO, I believe both McCain and Obama are not "natural born", as meant by the constitutional architects. There has long been the question of whether or not a person born of American parents outside the US would be considered "natural born", which is only relevant. George Washington certainly did not want to even take a chance about a foreign born, and made it clear that they would be considered citizens only, and not natural born. Both candidates were frauds. We were just supposed to sit back and let them ram Obama down our throats. BTW, about McCain...Obama and H. Clinton both cosponsored a resolution to declare that he is a natural born citizen. Ironic, that Obama would go out of his way to prove someone born outside the country is natural born. John McCain was born outside the Panama Canal Zone, but I don't think that even matters because it certainly was not in the US. His citizenship was given to him because of laws written to determine who is and is not a citizen "at birth", because of the citizenships of his/her parents. Natural born means you are a citizen because of, or "by birth", in the US. It's just one last check from our founding fathers to keep foreigners from gaining control of America's armies. But at least we can all agree that the constitution is old, outdated, irrelevant, and worst of all...DANGEROUS. Especially when people like me can run around on the internet freely expressing their ideas. The internet will soon be controlled thanks to Obama and Co. At least we can all take comfort in that.

Koufax

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:43:27 -0600

I've waited 8 long years to say this: "Hey Anti-Tax douchebag, if you don't like it you can just git out!" Aren't we all a little tired of the Obama rumors? http://tinyurl.com/6jb7l6

The Bulldog

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:10:55 -0600

Anyone who believes Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen is nucking futs. Same goes for the people who think he is a Muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, and on and on and on. Those people are becoming the heart and soul of the Republican movement and their hero is Sarah Palin. They and Palin are the gift that keeps on giving.

BlueFairlane

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:04:02 -0600

McCain was born in Panama. Does that make him Panamanian? Does that mean he was not a natural born citizen,despite the fact that he was born to citizens? Do we have to go back and rerun the election as Hillary vs. Mitt?

Ingrid

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:59:32 -0600

Speaking of birthin' stories: http://www.palindeception.com Not to go off on a conspiracy, but it seems to me that it would be a pretty easy thing to prove, so why won't she just answer the questions and put an end to it?

matilda

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:45:40 -0600

He was likely born in Kenya, as his relatives who were present at the time have said. If this is true, he could still be considered "natural born," though. That problem is, like many things in the Constitution, the Founders left that phrase pretty vague. McCain had his own (very minor) problem with this because of his place of birth.

mikely1

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:45:12 -0600

Wow, UtahBill and techla have never posted a comment under their monikers before today. Shocker. Next!

techla

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:37:49 -0600

IMO, He was likely born in Kenya, as his relatives who were present at the time have said. Upon returning shortly after to the states, his mother may have registered his birth in the State of Hawaii and posted the birth announcements soon thereafter. His certification, like any other out-of-country birth or adoption, will say Honolulu because that is the city his birth was registered in. A certifiCATION (not a certificate) of live birth, which he posted on the internet and allowed factcheck.org to openly examine, is not enough to prove one's place of birth, as Hawaii officials openly admit on their DHHL page of the state's official website. And now some kooks want the real certificate of birth so we can verify what he tried to prove (unsuccessfully) on his smears website? Ok Ok OK...so he's probably not a natural born citizen as the constitution intended he would have to be to become president. I think we can all assume that, considering he won't correct the error in his original web posting of his "original birth certificate", which was actually a web posting of the wrong document, i.e. a certification of live birth and not a certificate of live birth. SO WHAT?! YOU RIGHT WING NUTS NEED TO LET GO OF THE CONSTITUTION ALREADY! IT IS OLD, OUTDATED, AND A DANGER TO THIS COUNTRY!!! And furthermore...WHAT ARE YOU RIGHT WING NUTS GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Albanyparkour

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:31:17 -0600

@slaphappy: Republicans lost that around the time it became evident that a good number of neo-cons were shouting their vitriol about gays from the closet.

Slaphappy

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:12:56 -0600

He came from a less-than-ideal background in many respects, rose through his own merits and hard work and by all appearances has a stable, prosperous and even Christian family untouched by divorce or publicly-known adultery. Which is why you never heard the phrase "family values" during the general election. Remember when that was the GOP cause celebre?

Navin

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:02:33 -0600

He tries to have it both ways in the way he describes his travels but won't mention under what country his passport was held. But Ward, are we really sure that you're a U.S. citizen? I mean you've never made a point about saying so...seems a little fishy to me.

Ward Up

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:56:09 -0600

You have to admit that there are some holes in Obama's story. He tries to have it both ways in the way he describes his travels but won't mention under what country his passport was held. Perhaps that question deserves an answer. However, I can wait eight years. I didn't vote for him, but he is our President and we should move forward. The one bright side is that my Mom's church has a bulletin. Maybe they can sell this kook a full page ad.

Amy Mikel

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:45:40 -0600

also, the moon landing was a hoax.

Albanyparkour

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:32:06 -0600

@Navin: Yeah, I thought as much. Snopes is clearly in the tank for Obama.

moustache

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:31:29 -0600

Try this from snopes. www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

moustache

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:30:11 -0600

from snopes.com www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Navin

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:22:43 -0600

Methinks Utah's a random right wing spammer who discovered Chicagoist via some kind of search and we won't hear much from him again. You see them from time to time, particularly around the immigration related posts.

Albanyparkour

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:15:06 -0600

@Utahbill: Just out of curiosity, what's the angle on this? I mean, I get that you might not like his politics, but we had an election, he won. We'll have another in just four years, and congressional before that. Why persist in a dead end? Do you believe this is a conspiracy? Do you believe there is a nefarious scheme? What's the angle?

Navin

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:14:43 -0600

Wow sounds juicy UtahBill, You should spend every waking second of the next four years looking into that. Make sure you investigate every connection no matter how silly and tenuous.

matilda

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:09:37 -0600

Utah: There was also the small matter of the birth announcement in at least one Hawaiian paper shortly after Obama was born. But I suppose there was some Dem. or Marxist conspiracy at work there, too. I can't speak to the issue of Indonesian passports, but I know at least some US citizens who have managed to get passports from EU countries due to legal loopholes, which often seem to relate to parentage or even grand-parentage. (I'm not expert on this area, but this Obama birth conspiracy is laughable because 1) the caliber of nuts who have tried to push it--seriously, look into their looney histories; and 2) the factual evidence that boosts the Obama-is-really-an-American view) This reminds me of the Clinton killed Vince Foster crap we still have to deal with despite the lack of anything but flimsy, circumstantial "evidence". (As though there weren't enough reasons to dislike Clinton without resorting to ill-supported conspiracies.)

UtahBill

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:59:06 -0600

In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child's birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital. There's the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn't there at the time of Obama's visit. There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens. If he couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen.

UtahBill

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:59:02 -0600

matilda

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:53:15 -0600

Irony: Obama's story, and his family, seem as all-American as it can get. He came from a less-than-ideal background in many respects, rose through his own merits and hard work and by all appearances has a stable, prosperous and even Christian family untouched by divorce or publicly-known adultery. Yet certain nuts persist in calling this guy un-American (literally, in this case, I guess) or something approaching a Soviet sleeper agent. By the way, at this point, I would not mind a Pres. Arhnuld. He's a moderate, reasonable Republican who doesn't bend over the Bible and who wants to fight climate change and rebuild infrastructure and balance budgets before begging the fed govt. for cash. No, I can't believe I am saying this about the Terminator, a man who was a parody of himself by 1985. In any case, he is not a British Tory, nor is he Alexander Hamilton, two reasons why many of the Founders wanted the native-born rule. I would like to see that rule amended away, not for the Gov. of California so much as for other worthy candidates who might come along--for instance, someone born in Mexico.

Navin

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:38:38 -0600

You just can't make up stuff like this. It's too bad they didn't go for the "Malcolm X" is Barack's mom's baby daddy" angle. That one was much funnier.

ml180

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:37:05 -0600

Enough already with questioning whether Obama was born in the U.S. Seriously, get over it.

Albanyparkour

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:24:47 -0600

Well, at least the Tribune is getting some ad revenue. I do like that part of the constitution though. Honestly, it's keeping us from the dread specter of PRESIDENT SCHWARTZENEGGER.