LTC Lakin

frontpage201004222

Thanks to safeguardourconstitution

Posted in:
Updated:

81 responses to “LTC Lakin”

  1. sus says:

    That says it all.

  2. Rob A says:

    My understanding is that Phil Cave and Dwight Sullivan are the same dude. Just sayin’.

  3. ducktape says:

    I have it on good authority that Phil and Dwight were seen in the same place at the same time … but was it done with mirrors?

    Great pic, Phil, and great trial reporting on BTR, too. You’ve got a lot of new fans, and I’m one. Thanks!

  4. SueDB says:

    Looks like it belongs that way…at least from here on for 6 months…

  5. JLF says:

    I attended the trial of LTC Lakin and while the outcome was never in doubt, it was not without one disturbing observation. The jurors, all staff officers,
    When asked by the defense, what their feelings were when they first heard questions concerning the possibility, that President Obama didn’t meet the requirements to be president as mandated by our Constitution, ranged from no feelings at all to they thought about it a little bit, but that it didn’t concern them. I find this puzzling considering the fact that they have all taken an oath to..”defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic”. That is not to say that I expected all of them to put their career on the line as LTC Lakin. Not every man wants to be the first out of the trenches but to say it is of no concern to them, on any level, as a citizen or as an officer, that has taken an oath to defend the same speaks volumes as to their character. If this is a sampling of our leaders, and I think it is, I pray for the future of our country.

  6. BigGuy says:

    @JLF —

    There’s another possibility that you apparently haven’t considered, and that is that they had found no reason to take the subject more seriously than they did.

    Remember, you birthers seem to confuse two questions. The first is, “Wouldn’t it be terrible for our country if the Constitution were subverted?” And the answer to that, I think we all agree, is “Yes.”

    The second question is, “Is the evidence that this has happened with regard to Pres. Obama’s eligibility at all convincing?” And for most of us, the answer is a resounding “No.”

    I know, you disagree. But the responses you heard from the panel members should give you some idea of how one segment of the general population feels — a segment with higher than average education, higher than average income, and higher than average commitment to service to our country. And probably somewhat more conservative than the population at large.

    I imagine that would be a disturbing observation for you, but I suggest you let it sink in. There’s a message there for you.

  7. The fact that the panel members, and the vast majority of the military, doesn’t care about this issue is good. That enabled Neal to argue that LTC Lakin was “unique” and that the likelihood of a mutiny was zero. That worked in his favor. Most senior officers in the military are very conservative. It’s quite possible that not one of the officers on the panel voted for President Obama. It’s quite possible that most of the officers do not like President Obama. But, unlike LTC Lakin they did not allow their attitudes in intrude on their duty.And please note that the oath taken by an officer requires them to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

  8. JLF says:

    @BigGuy

    The question asked was….what was their first feelings when they heard that Obama might not meet the mandates of the Constitution to be president. This is a place in time, before, they would have done any research of their own or reached any conclusion, rightly or wrongly.
    Again their answers were of no interest or importance to very little.

    Those that are in denial of the eligibility question have never answered the simple question as to why he has spent so much money to keep his records sealed. Apparently they also suffer from the same lack of interest.
    If I were him and were all I claimed to be I would produce my proof and laugh at all those crazy birthers. I think you would too.

  9. interested onlooker says:

    That picture is about the only thing the birthers predicted correctly about this whole sorry episode!

    As for the members of the panel, I think they all understand the concepts of civilian control of the military, the importance of obeying legal orders, and what a legal order is. With those concepts well in hand, the only military officers who might need to be concerned about whether the President is ineligible are those who receive orders directly from the President, and that is a pretty small set. Then couple that with the fact that the President was duly elected by the Electoral College, confirmed by Congress and the Vice President, and sworn into office (repeatedly!) by the Chief Justice, and not a single one of those individuals who could have spoken up as part of their job did so. Any member of that panel has plenty of duties to handle without improperly taking on a duty not given to them to second guess the efforts of everyone who had a constitutional role in installing the President in office. How can one simultaneously claim to defend the Constitution while violating it, as any effort by the military to remove the President would certainly be?

  10. yguy says:

    The fact that the panel members, and the vast majority of the military, doesn’t care about this issue is good.

    It’s certainly good for Obama, if he is in fact a de jure usurper.

    As for the members of the panel, I think they all understand [] what a legal order is.

    If the prevailing view at CAAFLOG is representative of their understanding, they only know what they’ve been taught to believe in that regard, and have not stopped to consider the lesson taught by the Civil War: that whatever is purported to be law only has legitimacy insofar as it is just. Thus, they can be expected to swallow such gargantuan camels as “It doesn’t matter whether the CiC is a usurper” without so much as a hiccup.

  11. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — “Those that are in denial of the eligibility question have never answered the simple question as to why he has spent so much money to keep his records sealed. ”
    __

    Those who are pushing the eligibility question have never answered the simple question of what documentation supports their claim that “he has spent so much money to keep his records sealed.”

    That’s one of the big reasons birtherism has gone nowhere. We keep being told that various pieces of evidence exist — evidence that he has spent millions keeping records sealed, evidence that he uses fraudulent SS numbers, evidence that Hawaii gives COLBs that falsely proclaim Hawaiian birthplaces for people born elsewhere, evidence that he lost his U.S. citizenship over something that happened in Indonesia, evidence that the Founders wanted natural born citizens to have two citizen parents, etc., etc.

    But somehow the evidence never manages to rise to the surface. And it’s been over two years.

  12. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — ‘such gargantuan camels as “It doesn’t matter whether the CiC is a usurper”’
    __

    The gargantuan camel is a gargantuan straw man of your creation.

    No one has said that “[i]t doesn’t matter whether the CiC is a usurper.” Of course it matters very much; and those of us who believe in the U.S. Constitution trust that document to show us the path to be taken in such a situation.

    But even if that situation existed, LTC Lakin would be required to report to COL Roberts’s office or face penalties comparable to the ones he’s facing now.

  13. yguy says:

    No one has said that “[i]t doesn’t matter whether the CiC is a usurper.”

    Either you haven’t been paying attention at CAAFLOG or you’re lying. Christopher Mathews, even though he later tried to slither out of it, said unequivocally that the US military would serve well the purposes of the American people under a usurper; and someone posting as “sg”, evidently in a quixotic attempt to defend Mathews, said “even if there were a usurper [] then it wouldn’t matter because the will of the people is expressed in and by Congress.” The criticism which ought to be directed at the authors of these insanities has, predictably, been directed instead at yours truly for characterizing them accurately.

  14. JLF says:

    @ interested onlooker
    You are so right. There were so many individuals that not only was it their job but it was their duty to speak up. You know what happens when somebody drops the ball,somebody else has to pick it up. The further it gets from the persons that had the original responsibility the more the excuses as to why it shouldn’t be me and this is where we find ourselves today. What is the honest citizen to do? Should he give up and join the treasonous conspiracy? Be quiet and behave like the ruling elite tell him? Should he play it safe and just follow orders? Those are the easy things to do unless you love your country and its Constitution.
    The saying goes..no man can serve two masters. An officer takes an oath to defend the Constitution. That is his only allegiance. I do not wish for mutiny in our armed services nor do I wish for our armed forces to blindly follow a leader that is illegally holding the office. The army should have allowed discovery. If Lakin was wrong,find him guilty and do what has to be done. If Lakin was right, pass the information obtained to the proper authorities
    and give him a medal. For the Army to deny discovery because it might embarrass an illegal President is crazy. Do deny a man the
    right to prove his case is shameful and criminal.

  15. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JLF, you are relying on an Internet myth. Contrary to what is often cited on websites that seek to advance the birther agenda, Judge Lind did not, in your words, “deny discovery because it might embarrass an illegal President.” Read her ruling and you will see that was not included in her rationale and that those who advance that myth are misrepresenting her ruling’s use of “embarrass.”

  16. Dwight Sullivan says:

    p.s. — it often strikes me as ironic that those who seem as though they would be satisfied with nothing less than giving every American citizen an opportunity to touch the original so-called vault copy of President Obama’s birthcertificate are so willing to rely on second- and third-hand accounts of readily available documents — such as Judge Lind’s ruling on LTC Lakin’s discovery request — rather than going to the primary source.

  17. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — “Either you haven’t been paying attention at CAAFLOG or you’re lying. ”
    __

    Cheap shot, and completely inaccurate.

    The question was whether the Army would “work well,” and indeed it would. The military is designed to work well throughout a variety of “crises,” real and imagined, including those in which a CiC is actually ineligible as well as those in which a bunch of nutjobs are simply screaming that he is. That is what the Founders considered to be in the best interests of the people, and I think they were right.

    That doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t matter if that were the case. All it means is that the purported usurpation would be dealt with by Congress through the means specified in the Constitution, and in the interim we would count on the military to protect our vital interests by working well. The Constitution tries to ensure that by specifying that our members of Congress deal with the eligibility question while continuing to require our service members to obey their orders. It serves the interests of the people for the military to work well while our elected representatives perform their duties. It does not serve the people well for individual service members to cross the line and attempt to exercise powers expressly given in the Constitution to other entities.

  18. yguy says:

    @yguy — “Either you haven’t been paying attention at CAAFLOG or you’re lying. ”
    __

    Cheap shot, and completely inaccurate.

    Not at all – but thanks for disposing of one alternative.

    The question was whether the Army would “work well,”

    No, that was not the question, and you bloody well know it.

    The military is designed to work well throughout a variety of “crises,” real and imagined, including those in which a CiC is actually ineligible []. That is what the Founders considered to be in the best interests of the people, and I think they were right.

    What the Framers considered to be in the best interests of the people was to have the military under the command of a natural born citizen, but you don’t give a damn about that.

    That doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t matter if that were the case. All it means is that the purported usurpation would be dealt with by Congress through the means specified in the Constitution,

    There is no specified means of dealing with usurpation, any more than engine rebuilding manuals specify means of dealing with beer bottles left in cylinders during reassembly.

    and in the interim we would count on the military to protect our vital interests by working well.

    And under the command of a usurper, why wouldn’t it, right?

    The Constitution tries to ensure that by specifying that our members of Congress deal with the eligibility question

    It does no such thing.

    It does not serve the people well for individual service members to cross the line and attempt to exercise powers expressly given in the Constitution to other entities.

    Which is nothing like what Lakin did, obviously.

  19. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — “The question was whether the Army would “work well,” /
    No, that was not the question, and you bloody well know it.”
    __

    Really? This is from the post to which you pointed in order to illustrate your point:

    yguy: It won’t work very well with a usurper running it, at least as far as the purposes of the American people are concerned.

    Christopher Matthews: Except it will.
    __

    You can flail all you like, yguy, but you are offering the same lame arguments we’ve been seeing from you for months. And when you get caught lying, you never fail to amuse by flailing even more wildly.

  20. yguy says:

    @yguy — “The question was whether the Army would “work well,” /
    No, that was not the question, and you bloody well know it.”
    __

    Really? Yeah, really.

    This is from the post to which you pointed in order to illustrate your point:

    yguy: It won’t work very well with a usurper running it, at least as far as the purposes of the American people are concerned.

    Christopher Matthews: Except it will.

    Yes, that is an accurate quote, and the emphasis shows that you misrepresented the question, just as I said.

    You can flail all you like, yguy, but you are offering the same lame arguments we’ve been seeing from you for months.

    More shame on you, then, for failing to find any way to counter them other than with lies.

  21. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — “the emphasis shows that you misrepresented the question”
    __

    Not a bit, I addressed it directly when I said: “That is what the Founders considered to be in the best interests of the people, and I think they were right.”

    You see, the problem with all your arguments is that they presuppose that there is a usurper in power, and you writhe in indignation that the nation has the audacity to function on a “business as usual” basis.

    But your claims of ineligibility are purely conjectural at this point, no matter how deeply you hold them or how loudly you scream them. And until they move from conjecture to fact, it is — and must be — business as usual.

    That is how we, in our Constitutional way, go about the business of distinguishing between legitimate constitutional crises and rabid political hooliganism.

  22. SueDB says:

    Fish-on!!!…

  23. JLF says:

    @ Dwight Sullivan
    To save time, tell me in your words why discovery was not allowed

  24. JLF says:

    @Big Guy

    Those who are pushing the eligibility question have never answered the simple question of what documentation supports their claim that “he has spent so much money to keep his records sealed.”

    The question has been answered many times. The document is the long form birth certificate that most of us have had to show at various times during our lives. It includes the name of the hospital, the name of the doctor, the names of the parents, the child’s weight etc. That is all that was ever asked for. He has decided that the American people have no right to see this or any of his records so his first order of business in the White House was to seal all of his records.

    Make believe you are a student and Obama is your hero. You want to be just like him. You want to take all the courses he took so you can be as successful as he was. You can’t find out what courses he took. It’s a state secret. Why? I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me.

  25. Joey says:

    Barack Hussein Obama was able to get 69,456,897 popular votes on the strength of the information that was in the public domaine about his life. That’s the most votes for any presidential candidate in US history.
    JLF, you are not thinking like a politician. Obama saw what happened to John Kerry with his “swiftboating,” so he and his advisors have been very controlled and selective about what personal information is released and when it is released as to not give his political opponents any ammunition. Obama’s political opposition certainly has the financial resources to outbid anyone else to force release of damaging background data on Obama. As Wiki-leaks shows us, it is impossible to keep so-called “confidential” information confidential.
    I suspect that just like Clinton and Bush #43 before him, MUCH closer to the next presidential election, there will be a late Friday afternoon “document drop” when a huge amount of information will be “dropped” on the national news media that will take weeks to sort through and miss the immediate 24 news cycle and therefore become “old news” by the time it’s really vetted for relevancy.
    Anyone who doesn’t have enough background information on Obama should simply vote against him in 2012 and I would tell anyone who has Barack Obama as their hero, “don’t make politicians your heroes.” There are scientists, physicians, educators, and humanitarians who are much better role models. Look up what courses they took..

  26. BigGuy says:

    @JLF —
    You quoted my question but didn’t answer it; maybe you misunderstood what I asked. Read it again.

    However, the answer you did give contains other falsehoods, like: “the long form birth certificate … is all that was ever asked for.”

    Even if we limit our discussion to the Lakin case, we can see that the requests for documentation included “[w]ritings of Punahou school, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University regarding applications for admission and financial aid of Barrack Houssein Obama II/Barry Soetoro; and… [r]ecords in possession of Hawaii State Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring pertaining to the birth of Barrack Houssein Obama II.”

    The statement “his first order of business in the White House was to seal all of his records” is also false.

    Please do a little more research. Many of us have been through similar discussions for a couple of years, and it becomes tiresome to keep countering the same misinformation.

  27. yguy says:

    @yguy — “the emphasis shows that you misrepresented the question”
    __

    Not a bit, I addressed it directly when I said: “That is what the Founders considered to be in the best interests of the people, and I think they were right.”

    That certainly computes if “addressed it directly” can be taken to mean “evaded it entirely”.

    You see, the problem with all your arguments is that they presuppose that there is a usurper in power,

    This, of course, is another brazen lie. Moreover, what elicited from Mathews what I deem his signature absurdity was not an argument at all, but a self-evident truth that only a fool would even take issue with, let alone reject outright.

    and you writhe in indignation

    You are more than welcome to your fantasies. As for me, I’m fed to the teeth with your weaselly dissembling, so have a nice life.

  28. BigGuy says:

    @yguy — “have a nice life.”
    __

    Thanks, likewise. As you may have noticed, we tend to take turns in the amusing task of puncturing holes in your childish, hateful fantasies. I am happy to pass the torch to one of my compatriots.

  29. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I noted that one could read Judge Lind’s ruling and see that the “embarrass the President” myth was a concoction by birther websites. I also mentioned that the original document is readily available online. JLF responded by saying: “To save time, tell me in your words why discovery was not allowed.” That misses the whole point. There’s no need for JLF to take my word for what’s in her ruling than there is for him to take a birther website’s word. He can read her complete rationale here:

    http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lakin-ruling.pdf

    “[S]av[ing] time” by redulously accepting things written on birther websites rather than taking the time to discover the actual facts may explain quite a lot.

  30. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JLF’s statement that a copy of the so-called long-form birth certificate “is all that was ever asked for” overlooks birtherstani’s repeated calls for reams and reams of documents including — I kid you not — President Obama’s kindergarten records.

  31. Joey says:

    Judge Lind said that “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

    Anyone who interprets that statement as meaning granting discovery to LTC. Lakin would embarrass President Obama is an idiot.

    The word “embarrassment” has many definitions and perhaps the closest to the way Colonel Lind is using it is fouind in the old cliche’, “an embarrassment of riches.” No PERSON is embarrassed in a situation where there is an embarrassment of riches and no PERSON is embarrassed when multifarious pronouncement by various departments are being made on one question.

  32. BigGuy says:

    ‘The word “embarrassment” has many definitions…’
    __

    Yes, and Judge Lind’s use of it was essentially a direct quote from the SCOTUS case, Baker v. Carr, a standard cite for Political Question cases. Justice Brennan’s decision can be read in its entirety at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0369_0186_ZO.html, and it’s clear that the phrase is being used in a context in which it cannot possibly be construed as referring to embarrassing anyone.

    In fact, it’s interesting to note that in the aftermath of her ruling, several of the lakinista sites hailed the use of the E-word as the “smoking gun,” but even Dogbite Jensen wasn’t dumb enough to cite it as a grounds for appeal.

  33. JLF says:

    @BigGuy

    The following information was obtained from the White House web site. It states that on his first full day in office the President signed two Executive Orders and three Presidential
    Memoranda. One Excutive Order concerning the release of Presidential records was posted on January 21, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST. The other Executive Order was about
    Ethics Commitments and was posted on January 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM EST.

    After you research and confirm the above you will believe me when I say that I also find it tiresome countering misinformation and false statements.

    On the long form birth certificate I misspoke. What I meant to say is that originally all that was asked for was the long form birth certificate. It is quite possible that if that request was granted that there wouldn’t be any need for any further documentation request. Neither you nor I can say with absolute certainty what would have transpired one way or the other. As you know, all request for any information have been denied.

    You stated…”But somehow the evidence never manages to rise to the surface. And it’s been over two years”. You seem to be implying because the stonewalling has been successful, that the request for the information has lost it’s credibility due of the passage of time alone. Is that your position?

  34. BigGuy says:

    @JLF —

    1) Sorry, the misinformation is still coming from you. The Executive Order on Presidential Records (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/), despite your assertion, had absolutely nothing to do with “seal[ing] his records.” It had to do with a different type of records altogether, and was in fact widely seen as a significant loosening of the restrictions imposed by George W. Bush and an important move in the direction of transparency. If you still think your interpretation is correct, please quote the part of the document you are referring to.

    2) “It is quite possible that if that request was granted that there wouldn’t be any need for any further documentation request.” LOL!! I’m sorry, I’m not in a position to negotiate on behalf of the White House over how many documents it would take to satisfy the birthers. I’m satisfied to know that the COLB is prima facie evidence of when and where he was born, and anyone who is not satisfied with it is going to have difficulty trying to force the President to prove something he’s already proved.

    2) On my comment that “the evidence never manages to rise to the surface,” you have apparently misunderstood what I said, even though I gave many examples. The birthers like to claim, for example, that State of Hawaii issues COLBs saying that people were born in Hawaii to people that weren’t born in Hawaii. Why haven’t we seen one? Why haven’t you found a single one in all of Hawaii in over two years? How are you going to blame Obama stonewalling for that? Your complete inability to come up with evidence that you claim exists severely weakens the credibility of those claims.

  35. muldrake says:

    The EO from Obama was practically word-for-word identical to the same EO issued by Ronald Reagan.

    As usual, birfers are complete morons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 completely explains what happened in reality, as opposed to Birfoonistan.

  36. JLF says:

    @BigGuy

    Thank you. Thanks for straightening me out on the EO issue. You are a hundred percent
    correct in that it doesn’t have any connection with his decision to hide his personal records.

    I’m still in a quandary as to why he has gone to such expense to hide records that could
    only support all he has said. Is it possible you could enlighten me with the benefit of
    your thoughts?

    I like you can’t speak for anybody else but for this birther the long form birth certificate
    would be all it would take for me to go away.

  37. JLF says:

    @muldrake
    I am smart enough to realize when I am wrong and man enough to admit it. If this makes me a moron
    it is going to be difficult for us to become friends.

  38. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — “I’m still in a quandary as to why he has gone to such expense to hide records that could only support all he has said.”
    __

    Please remember that I asked you about this previously (in comment 12). Despite the frequent birther claim that he has gone to great expense to hide records, there is no evidence of that. There have been a few arguments advanced in an attempt to support that position, but none of them hold water. (Examples: Campaign expenditure filings show large payments to Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Obama campaign. But there’s no indication that any of that was used to hide records — that’s just an unsupported birther assumption — and the amounts are fully in line with what other recent presidential campaigns have paid their lawyers. Another typical argument is “It must have cost a lot to defend against all those law suits,” but that argument falls apart too when you examine a list of the suits themselves. For the vast majority, Obama wasn’t even a defendant; and for those in which he was, the legal work in filing, for example, a motion for dismissal would have been fairly minimal.)

    “I like you can’t speak for anybody else but for this birther the long form birth certificate
    would be all it would take for me to go away.”

    Good point — you understand that you are speaking of your own personal requirements for documentation. There is a broad range out there of different birthers having different requirements. How many of those should the President attempt to satisfy, knowing that whatever he does there will still be doubters?

    I don’t speak for him, of course, but I think he’s doing the right thing. Since there will always be doubters no matter what — there are still people who think the earth is flat, after all — he is taking the sensible course of doing what the law requires instead of chasing the impossible dream of trying to satisfy everybody.

    Remember, by the way, that he was under no legal obligation to post his COLB online. He did that purely voluntarily — possibly under the mistaken impression that, since it was a legally valid birth certificate, it would be sufficient to satisfy any doubters.

    If it were me, I’d think twice before falling into that trap again.

  39. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JLF, you wrote: “I am smart enough to realize when I am wrong and man enough to admit it. ” I, for one, applaud you for that and thank you for engaging in a serious discussion of these issues.

  40. Joey says:

    Obama saw what happened with the “swiftboating” of John Kerry and he was determined from primary season not to let the same thing happen to him. He has carefully and deliberately blocked any of his political opponents from gaining information that could be used against him.
    However, in this day and age of Wikileaks and whistleblowers, there is absolutely NO WAY to keep damaging information hidden. Obama’s political opponents have tremendous financial resources and could easily buy access to any damaging information that could be used against him. The fact that it hasn’t happened since he announced his candidacy on February 10, 2007 speaks volumes to me: there’s no there, there.
    If Obama released a long form birth certificate, that would satisfy a few birthers, but not most if the information on that long form was not damaging to Obama’s continuance as President. The real object of the “Obama is ineligible” movement is to remove Barack Obama from the Presidency by any means possible.

    Obama’s long form birth certificate can be released under subpoena without Obama’s permission. The fact that no one has even attempted to subpoena that document also speaks volumes to me.
    The Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Director of the Hawaii state Health Department, the Registrar of Vital Statistics and the Director of Communications for the Hawaii Health Department have all confirmed Obama’s birth in that state at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961 and two contemporaneous birth notices appeared for Obama in both local Honolulu newspapers on August 13 and August 14, 1961. If all that verification isn’t good enough for birthers, nothing will every satisfy the majority of them.

  41. Rickey says:

    @JLF – “The document is the long form birth certificate that most of us have had to show at various times during our lives. It includes the name of the hospital, the name of the doctor, the names of the parents, the child’s weight etc.”

    That is demonstrably untrue. New York is the second-most populous state in the country, and I have never seen a “long form” birth certificate from New York. A New York birth certificate contains the following information, and the following information only:

    Name
    Sex
    Date of Birth
    City and State of Birth
    Father’s Name
    Mother’s Maiden Name

    That’s it. No name of doctor, no name of hospital, no birth weight, no indication of race. In fact, New York’s birth certificate contains less information than a Hawaii COLB. Yet my New York birth certificate was sufficient for me to get a driver’s license, get a Social Security Number, enlist in the Navy (which gave me a Top Secret security clearance), register to vote, and get a U.S. passport.

  42. yguy says:

    How much information about a candidate’s past do we, the voters, have a right to?

    Everything that has direct bearing on eligibility for the office, at the least.

    It’s a legal document, it’s good enough to use to get a passport, and it contains the key piece of information needed in this case: place of birth = Honolulu.

    The point is not that the COLB has less information, but that it represents the testimony of the current DoH rather than that of the officials who purportedly recorded the birth originally; so there is no way for the general public to know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born in HI except the original documentation be published.

  43. Keith says:

    Everything that has direct bearing on eligibility for the office, at the least.

    Exactly. So that would be the COLB for age and location of birth and a statutory declaration or general public knowledge for the residency requirement, right? No problem.

    The point is not that the COLB has less information, but that it represents the testimony of the current DoH rather than that of the officials who purportedly recorded the birth originally; so there is no way for the general public to know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born in HI except the original documentation be published.

    The purpose for the existence of the Vital Statistics office in the Hawai’ian DoH is to ensure the integrity of the vital statistics and to issue official reports of those statistics as provided by Hawai’ian law. A certificate listings the facts of a vital event, issued under official seal and attested to by the signature of the legally authorized custodian of the original records is a ‘self authenticating document’ and the equivalent to a statement made under oath in a court, and subject to the same penalties against perjury.

    The COLB in possession of the President, images of which have been published on his campaign website and on the FactCheck website, is such a document. It contains ‘everything that has direct bearing on eligibility for the office’ except, of course, the residential history.

    Your apparent requirement that the 50 year old piece of paper be fingered by 300 million Americans reveals your disingenuous concerns. What less of a standard than that could possibly satisfy your demand ‘for the general public to know beyond a reasonable doubt’? If you won’t accept the word of the Official charged with custody of the document, the integrity of the information, and the lawful reporting of that information with the authority of the State of Hawai’i who owns the information, who could you possibly trust? Would Orly trust the same person? Would Mario trust the same person? Would ex-LTC Lakin trust the same person? Would Michael Jordan trust the same person? Would Janet Brewer trust the same person? Would Joe Plumber trust the same person?

  44. JLF says:

    @ Rickey
    I find that interesting because I am sitting here with my New York State birth certificate in front of me.

    Full Name of the child
    Name and location of hospital
    My Fathers age and his birthplace and occupation
    His sex and color or race and age at this birth
    My Mothers age and birthplace and occupation
    Her sex and color or race and age at the time of this birth
    The Residence of the mother
    The number of children born alive to this mother PREVIOUS to this pregnancy
    The signature of the doctor
    The address of the doctor
    The date of report
    Date issued
    Document number
    Certificate number

    It does not have my weight so I guess you have the right to jump on me for that.

  45. Joey says:

    Keith, I must say, that was a BRILLIANT post!
    The former Governor of the state of Hawaii has verified that Obama was born in that state and she is a member of the opposing political party to the President. The former Attorney General of Hawaii, who was also a Republican approved the statements released by the former Director of Health also verifying Obama’s birth documents. If the former Governor, the Attorney General, the Director of Health and the Registrar of Vital Statistics are ever deposed or subpoenaed to testify, they can verify their written and verbal authentifications.

  46. Bob Ross says:

    JLF is that a hospital certificate or the original? These would be two separate forms. When is the last time you tried getting a copy of your birth certificate? Most states only send out a short form birth certificate nowadays.

  47. SueDB says:

    Only a backward and totally incompetent state government would keep paper documents around somewhere. Once all the documents are in a data base and certified complete – everything is now electronic. This provides almost instant access to information. It would come in handy to check to see if someone’s CWP is valid.

  48. JLF says:

    @ Bob Ross

    No it is not the original as it was issued in 1991. The certificate was issued by the Department of Health, City of New York.

  49. BigGuy says:

    @JLF —

    What makes it hard to generalize is that each of the states has operated independently with regard to birth certificates, subject to some federal guidelines concerning how much information is required for things like passport and Social Security applications; and, to make it more complicated, each state has its own peculiar history of altering the format of its documents over the years, especially as records became computerized, so what was true in the recent past may not be true now.

    But it’s not too hard to determine the current situation with regard to any particular state. As far as Hawaii is concerned, an official web page says that “the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.” On the other hand, to confuse the subject still further, I have heard (but not verified) that Hawaii has made yet another change that is not reflected on the web site: The short form is still all they offer, but the title of the document has been changed to “Certificate of Live Birth”!

    But to simplify things a bit, can you tell us whether or not you agree with the following:

    The “short form” birth certificate, like the one shown online for Obama, is a legally valid Hawaiian birth certificate, the only form Hawaii currently issues, and contains all the birth data required to determine natural born citizenship. (Of course it says nothing regarding the 14-year residence requirement.)

    Does that comport with your understanding of things?

  50. JLF says:

    @BigGuy
    The “short form” birth certificate, like the one shown online for Obama, is a legally valid Hawaiian birth certificate, the only form Hawaii currently issues, and contains all the birth data required to determine natural born citizenship. (Of course it says nothing regarding the 14-year residence requirement.) ……………………………

    The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and presented by Barack Obama as documentation of his reported Hawaiian birth doesn’t “prove” his birth alone, according to government officials interviewed by WND.
    According to State Department officials, such a short-form birth document might be accepted as documentation of a U.S. birth for a passport if it meets certain requirements. Their conclusion is that the law is “complicated.”
    And state officials in Hawaii independently told WND that such documents are issued only when certain standards have been met. _But those requirements and standards leave the door open to some circumstances under which the COLB image does not prove what it purports.
    WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president based on doubts that he was born in the U.S. or was granted “natural born” citizenship at birth. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born” citizen.

    Definition of Natural Born:

    U.S. CONSTITUTION, Article II, Sec.I:
    No person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

    de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, Sec. 212:
    The Natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents
    who are citizens .. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these
    become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

    Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

    U.S. CONSTITUTION, Article I, Sec. 8:
    The Congress shall have Power.. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed
    On the high seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.

    Laws of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a PROPER NAME. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress and the Judiciary have the power to enforce any law mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel.

    Natural Born is a separate class of citizen for a very important reason. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure any citizen that served as President owed his allegiance, commitment and fiduciary responsibility, first and foremost, to the United States of America, not some foreign nation.

    In the simplest of terms: Natural Born means born of parents (mother AND father) who were US Citizens at the time of birth. It also means born on sovereign US soil (Vattel: born in the country, of parents who are citizens). Obama’s father was not a US Citizen.

    As you stated in addition there is the 14-year residence requirement.

  51. BigGuy says:

    @JLF —

    I understood us to be discussing a particular issue, but instead you ducked my question and suddenly segued to a cut-and-paste job of sundry long-debunked birther inanities.

    I find that particular surprising and disappointing because only yesterday (#37) that you presented yourself as a birther for whom “the long form birth certificate would be all it would take for me to go away.”

    It appears that you don’t tell the truth, and that makes having a discussion with you far less attractive.

  52. Joey says:

    To JLF, ALL nouns were capitalized in the original version of the Constitution as was the grammatical fashion in the 18th Century. The context of law of nations in Article 1, Section 8 makes it clear that the reference is to international law (which is often called “the law of nations” and not to a book written on the principles of international law written by Emer de Vattel.

    The state of Hawaii’s Certification of Live Birth (now called a Certficate of Live Birth) contains all the information that any birth document can provide to qualify as a natural born citizen.
    Only one lawsuit has ruled on Obama’s eligibility to be considered as natural born. That lawsuit was Ankeny, et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by (US v)Wong Kim Ark (1898), we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v Daniels, November 12, 2009.
    No higher court has reversed Ankeny and the US Supreme Court has had nine opportunities to take up applications for stays or injunctions or Petititions for Writs of Certiorari regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility and the Supreme Court has rejected them all: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Kerchner v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz; all denied hearings before the full US Supreme Court.

  53. JLF says:

    @bigGuy
    I don’t agree that the “short form ” that Obama posted on-line gives enough information by itself to prove
    “natural birth”. I think the long form would. If he produced the long form and the proper government autthority vouched for its authenticty, not factcheck or snopes, I would go away as promised. I hope you believe me, as I have already demonstrated my honesty to you , when I admitted to you that you proved me wrong on a previous issue. That trait seems quite rare in these discussions.

  54. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — “I don’t agree that the “short form ” that Obama posted on-line gives enough information by itself to prove “natural birth”. I think the long form would.”
    __

    Please tell me what information having to to with Presidential eligibility appears on the long form but not on the COLB.

  55. JLF says:

    @Joey
    I thought you might find some humor in this:

    It was over two centuries late, but a copy of a library book George Washington borrowed was returned yesterday to a New York library.

    The former president borrowed The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel on 5 October 1789, according to the records of the New York Society Library.

    Staff discovered it was missing when they conducted an inventory of books in the library’s 1789-1792 ledger earlier this year. Washington had never returned the book – an essay on international affairs – to the library, which shared a building with the federal government at the time and was used by members of Congress and the cabinet as well as the president. The former president’s overdue fines, it has been calculated, would theoretically amount to $300,000 (£209,000).

    After staff at Mount Vernon, Washington’s former home in Virginia, learned of the situation, they got in touch with the library – New York’s oldest – offering to replace the book with another copy of the same edition. A ceremony yesterday saw Mount Vernon staff present the book to the library.

    Two hundred and twenty-one years later, The Law of Nations has finally come home, with – fortunately for Mount Vernon’s coffers – no mention made of the fine.

  56. Joey says:

    The “proper authority” was Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the state of Hawai’i. Here again are her statements on this issue:
    1) “There have been numerous requests for Senator Barack Obama’s official birth certificate. 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.
    Therefore, I as Director of Health for the state of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statuatory authority to oversee and maintain these types of records, have personally seen and verified that the state of Hawai’i has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and proceedures.
    No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a way different from any other vital record in the possession of the state of Hawai’i.”–October 31, 2008

    (2) “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October, 2008, over eight months ago.”–July 27, 2009

    (3) “For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries
    a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website. Hawai’i is a “closed records” state, meaning that vital records are available only to those with a direct and tangible interest as defined by statute; hence, they are not subject to disclosure under public records requests.”–Testimony taken under oath by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the state of Hawai’i before the Hawai’i state Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations, February 23, 2010

    (4) “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again, I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawai’i. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make an it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by the people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”–Governor of Hawai’i Linda Lingle (R), Radio interview, May 2, 2010.

  57. Joey says:

    Yes JLF, I was aware of the return of George Washington’s library copy of the Law of Nations. I love that story!

    Because of the longevity involved, the Washington/deVattel story reminds me of James Madison proposing an amendment to the Constitution on September 25, 1789 and that amendment was ratified and became the 27th Amendment on May 7, 1992, 203 years later!

  58. JLF says:

    @BigGuy
    The Certification of Live Birth does not include the name of the hospital or the doctor’s name.
    The Certificate of Live Birth includes those details.
    While that information by itself might not prove or disprove eligibility it could be helpful in
    getting to the truth. Furthermore the submission of a new document would give the
    government an opportunity to check its authenticty something it neglected to do the first
    time around.

  59. BigGuy says:

    @JLF —

    As you point out, all of the data having anything to do with eligibility appears on the COLB. The name of the hospital and the doctor are completely irrelevant — after all, he could be a natural born citizen even if he were born at home with no doctor present. You must understand that there is no legal basis for requesting irrelevant information.

    Furthermore, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that the government neglected to check the authenticity of the COLB. Official government documents are, from a legal point of view, “self-authenticating” and are subject to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. And, in the case of state documents, each state has a branch of law enforcement that investigates and prosecutes forgeries of that state’s documents. This is not a crime that is treated lightly.

    Are you really suggesting that a presidential candidate would take the risk of showing a fake Hawaiian document at a time when the Governor of Hawaii, a Republican, was out on the campaign trail working to get his opp0nent elected? Not only was no effort made to prosecute Obama for this flagrant fraud — quite the opposite. Several state officials, including the Republican Governor of whom I spoke, verified that he was born there.

    I understand that you have an emotional inclination to want more information, but from a legal point of view you’ve got absolutely no basis to demand it. Legally, the President has proved he was born in Hawaii as fully as anyone can prove he or she was born anywhere, by showing a legally uncontested official document saying so. If there’s proof to the contrary, let’s see it. How many people do you think there are who, over the years, have been trained in how to tell a real document from a fake one? They can’t all be under Obama’s thumb. But not a single one has given his or her name and credentials and spoken up. This is exactly what I spoke about earlier — birthers claiming they’ve got evidence that never seems to surface. Remember, it’s a legal fact — the COLB is prima facie evidence, and the burden of proof is entirely on those who claim it’s not authentic.

  60. JLF says:

    @ Mike Dunford
    To my knowledge no other candidate for the office has ever submitted a
    Certification of Live Birth in place of a Birth Certificate. I know there are those
    that contend that they are the same in every way but I am not convinced. For what reason would the state of Hawaii issue two different documents for the same purpose? In
    addition no candidate to my knowledge has ever offered up his documentation on the
    internet. I know there are those that will say.. “He is in tune with the times. This is the way of the future”. But again that raises questions, in this age of fantastic copy machines
    and computers.
    I am not demanding more information than is strictly required. Mike, I think if you are honest, you will agree that these are legitimate concerns.

  61. JLF says:

    @BigGuy

    Yes you are correct. If he were born at home with no doctor present this would
    qualify him for a Certification of Live Birth rather than a Birth Certificate. This is what was posted on the internet. However, we are told he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital
    which means he would get a Birth Certificate and a doctor would have been present.

    True each state has a branch of law enforcement that investigates and prosecutes
    forgeries of that state’s documents. I am hopeful that they will eventually get around
    to it.

    I don’t believe that there is any great difference between Republicans or Democrats.
    They both drink from the same trough.

    You say, “Legally, the President has proved he was born in Hawaii as fully as anyone can prove he or she was born anywhere, by showing a legally uncontested official document
    saying so”. True to a point. All efforts to contest have been stymied.

  62. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — “To my knowledge no other candidate for the office has ever submitted a
    Certification of Live Birth in place of a Birth Certificate.”
    __

    Two problems with that. First of all, the Certification of Live Birth is a Birth Certificate — in fact, it is the only form of Birth Certificate that Hawaii currently issues, as I pointed out earlier. Some people still have copies of older formats issued years ago, but it is no longer possible to get them. Second problem, there is no requirement for a candidate to submit any kind of birth certificate, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

    “For what reason would the state of Hawaii issue two different documents for the same purpose?”

    As I said, at this time, the State of Hawaii does not issue two different documents for the same purpose. It issues only the COLB, like the one pictured online for Obama, even for new-born infants. That is the current Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

    “In addition no candidate to my knowledge has ever offered up his documentation on the
    internet.”

    That’s probably true. In fact, I can’t think of a candidate who has ever “offered up his documentation” in any format, internet or otherwise. Obama did it voluntarily, as there was no requirement for it. Why do you see that as a negative?

  63. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — “All efforts to contest have been stymied.”
    __

    You are skipping several key points.

    There were several legitimate means of challenge along the way. For example, as I said earlier, forgery and fraud are serious crimes. Had a single prosecutor or Department of Health official had any doubts about the COLB, there would have been no way for a criminal investigation to have been stymied, especially under a Republican Governor. There’s no credible reason to think that a crime occurred.

    Hillary Clinton or John McCain were fully in a position to mount legal challenges against Obama’s candidacy. They weren’t stymied; they chose not to do it, even though success would have meant Obama defeats. I suspect they determined that the evidence wasn’t there. You are aware, aren’t you, that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii at the time, said in an interview that she had the question looked into while she was out campaigning for McCain and came to the conclusion that there was no doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii?

    Any member of Congress could have filed an objection to the vote of the Electoral College. Not a single one from either house did — and there were certainly some who were deeply opposed to his election. That effort could not have been stymied. But no one in Congress felt there were any grounds to object.

    The House of Representatives could bring impeachment charges at any time. While it’s not clear how the vote would ultimately go, it would be public knowledge if any member of Congress expressed even an interest in doing it. Not a single one has. Are the Republicans being stymied?

    Many, many people have been in a legitimate position to challenge his eligibility, and not a single one has. That left the task to those who were not in a legitimate position to do so, which is why over 70 cases have been smacked down in court. If you wish to refer to that as being stymied, go ahead, but if you read the court decisions it will be clear why none of those cases belonged in court, and all the judges — Republican and Democrat alike — said so.

  64. Joey says:

    As Big Guy pointed out, Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)(9) allow a confidential birth record to be released to “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.”
    That means any legitimate authority like a District Attorney, a state Attorney General, a US Attorney, a congressional committee/sub-committee or a special counsel/special prosecutor could go to a judge and get a subpoena for Obama’s original birth records and they would be released without Obama’s permission.
    The fact that no such legitimate authority has sought a subpoena tells me all I need to know about this issue.
    Any prosecutor in the nation could, at any time, convene a Grand Jury investigation into the legitimacy of Obama’s birth records. Every presidential scandal in modern history was investigated by a Grand Jury: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan Scandal, Whitewater-Paula Jones-Monica Lewinsky, the CIA-Valerie Plame Affair that indicted Scooter Libby were all investigated by Grand Juries and if there was evidence of criminal activity, indictments were handed down.
    I think the on the record statements of Hawaii elected and appointed officials who were all Republicans took all the interest out of the Obama eligibility issue for any prosecuting attorneysa.

  65. Bob Ross says:

    JLF do yourself a favor. Try getting a copy of your birth certificate right now. See which one they send you. Hawaii changed their format in 2001.

  66. Bob Ross says:

    JLF you state two things that to your knowledge no candidate has offered up a COLB and that none of them put it on the internet. How can you be so sure any previous candidate ever offered up a birth certificate if you have never seen them?

  67. JLF says:

    @BigGuy
    Two problems with that. First of all, the Certification of Live Birth is a Birth Certificate — in fact, it is the only form of Birth Certificate that Hawaii currently issues, as I pointed out earlier. Some people still have copies of older formats issued years ago, but it is no longer possible to get them. Second problem, there is no requirement for a candidate to submit any kind of birth certificate, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. —-

    “For what reason would the state of Hawaii issue two different documents for the same purpose?”—-

    As I said, at this time, the State of Hawaii does not issue two different documents for the same purpose. It issues only the COLB, like the one pictured online for Obama, even for new-born infants. That is the current Hawaiian Birth Certificate. —-

    The Birth Certificate that Hawaii issues today doesn’t in anyway change previously
    issued Birth Certificates. The fact that they made some changes is a red herring. I am
    disappointed that you ducked the question as to why the State of Hawaii issued
    two different documents for the same purpose in the past. I thought we had elevated
    our discussion to a higher level in our search for the truth. I guess I was mistaken.

    That’s probably true. In fact, I can’t think of a candidate who has ever “offered up his documentation” in any format, internet or otherwise. Obama did it voluntarily, as there was no requirement for it. Why do you see that as a negative?—-

    Please be patient with me. Think of it, like Obama would say, “as a teaching moment”.
    Maybe my choice of words ( submit, offer up his documentation) isn’t “courtroom
    correct” and that is the problem. Are you saying that a candidate for President does
    not have to prove he meets the mandates of the Constitution to serve?

  68. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — “I am disappointed that you ducked the question as to why the State of Hawaii issued two different documents for the same purpose in the past.”
    __

    No need for the snotty attitude. Apparently the question I answered was not the one you asked, but you phrased it so poorly that I still don’t know what you were asking. What you had said was: “For what reason would the state of Hawaii issue two different documents for the same purpose?” Are you asking why at some time in the past were two different documents available at the same time, or why the document at one time differed from the document at another time? If you can phrase the question clearly I will try to answer it, and it will help if you tell me why you consider it relevant.

    “Are you saying that a candidate for President does not have to prove he meets the mandates of the Constitution to serve?”

    Yes, that’s what I’m saying. If you’re interested in learning more about this, there’s a document you should read produced by the Congressional Research Service. (“The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as “Congress’s think tank”, is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.” — Wikipedia)

    Because members of Congress were being pestered by birther constitutents over eligibility questions, some member(s) requested a research report on the subject, and the result was a memorandum on “Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.”

    Your question is answered right at the beginning:

    “Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation.”

    You might find the entire report interesting, and you can find it at http://www.scribd.com/doc/41192270/CRS-Members-of-Congress-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questions.

  69. JLF says:

    @ BigGuy
    Sorry you interpreted my remarks as a snotty attitude. That was not my intention.
    I was asking, why in the past two different documents were issued as birth certificates simutaneously ( it is
    your claim that both are birth certificates). My position is that the lawmakers in Hawaii had
    some reason to differentiate between a Certificate and a Certification and therefore there must be some
    significant difference.

  70. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — I’m no expert on the history of Hawaiian birth certificates, so some of what I say will be a guess. You’ll have to judge whether my thoughts seem logical.

    (But, first of all, let me point out that by far the more significant point I made in my previous post is that the production of the COLB was purely voluntary on Obama’s part, as there is no requirement for a Birth Certificate to be provided by presidential candidates. Do you accept that as fact? Does it shed any light on the situation?)

    Now, I think you’re aware that there have been significant changes in birth certificates over the years, especially in the last couple of decades as states have made the transition to computerized records. It may very well be — and this is a guess — that, as radical changes in content and formatting of BCs took place, some states made both the old and the new forms available simultaneously during the transition, but eventually eliminated the older one.

    There’s an additional consideration in Hawaii (and maybe elsewhere). Hawaii has at least one program designed for Native Hawaiians (a term analogous with “Native Americans,” denoting the pre-European population). Those who apply for it need to prove that they have at least 50% “Hawaiian blood.” The older Hawaiian birth certificates included more information about ancestry, which made them useful for DHHL applications, and it may be that Hawaii was reluctant to do away with the older form because of the resulting inconvenience for those wishing to apply. Nevertheless, eventually they did eliminate them, and since about 2001, the COLB has been the only for available.

    This situation is explained a bit on the DHHL home page (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl), which says the following, and also confirms the fact that both Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth are considered Birth Certificates:

    ‘Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

    ‘The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.’

  71. JLF says:

    Farewell

    I know there will be no tears shed as this “birther” leaves your web site. I think I come away knowing how Daniel must have felt in the lion’s den.

    I have learned some things and will try to incorporate that knowledge into my thoughts. I am sorry I wasn’t able to articulate my thoughts in a more coherent and persuasive manner.

    I hope at least that you can see why I and others have serious concerns as to Obama’s
    eligibility. Your answers seemed to home in on legal nuances and maybe that is as it should be. I was hoping the discussion would be more along the line of whether O.J .Simpson really did it, rather than if he was going to get away with it.

    I also hope that I have at least demonstrated that “birthers” is not a bad word and that we are not racist and want to be terrorist.
    PS: BigGuy… thanks for the last post

  72. BigGuy says:

    @JLF — I am actually sorry to see you go. I appreciated your candor and your civility, and I enjoyed our exchanges. Keep doing the research and have an open mind, I think you’ll see the pieces coming together.

    All the best to you.

  73. Edna Nicholson says:

    @JLF — “All efforts to contest have been stymied.” __ You are skipping several key points. There were several legitimate means of challenge along the way. For example, as I said earlier, forgery and fraud are serious crimes. Had a single prosecutor or Department of Health official had any doubts about the COLB, there would have been no way for a criminal investigation to have been stymied, especially under a Republican Governor. There’s no credible reason to think that a crime occurred. Hillary Clinton or John McCain were fully in a position to mount legal challenges against Obama’s candidacy. They weren’t stymied; they chose not to do it, even though success would have meant Obama defeats. I suspect they determined that the evidence wasn’t there. You are aware, aren’t you, that Linda Lingle, the Governor of Hawaii at the time, said in an interview that she had the question looked into while she was out campaigning for McCain and came to the conclusion that there was no doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii? Any member of Congress could have filed an objection to the vote of the Electoral College. Not a single one from either house did — and there were certainly some who were deeply opposed to his election. That effort could not have been stymied. But no one in Congress felt there were any grounds to object. The House of Representatives could bring impeachment charges at any time. While it’s not clear how the vote would ultimately go, it would be public knowledge if any member of Congress expressed even an interest in doing it. Not a single one has. Are the Republicans being stymied? Many, many people have been in a legitimate position to challenge his eligibility, and not a single one has. That left the task to those who were not in a legitimate position to do so, which is why over 70 cases have been smacked down in court. If you wish to refer to that as being stymied, go ahead, but if you read the court decisions it will be clear why none of those cases belonged in court, and all the judges — Republican and Democrat alike — said so.

  74. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JLF,

    I, too, am sorry to see you go. (Of course, you may already be gone, in which case you won’t read this.)

    You write: “I hope at least that you can see why I and others have serious concerns as to Obama’s eligibility.” I try to be open minded and I’m generally disposed to being skeptical. I should have been from Missouri, because I’m a “Show Me” kind of guy. But I really don’t see why anyone would have a serious question as to whether President Obama was born in Hawaii — which I understand to be your sole concern as to his eligibiity.

    Let’s review just some of what we know. President Obama’s campaign obtained what purports to be a certification of live birth and posted it on the Internet. He also made it available for inspection. It was inspected and pronounced to be valid. And it stated that he was born in Honolulu. Some people were still skeptical. The head of vital records and the head of the health department of Hawaii — under a Republican administration — then inspected the original birth certificate. The head of the health department issued a statement confirming that fact. Some people tried to argue that she was parsing her words, so she issued a second statement saying that the records she examined revealed the President was born in Hawaii. Honestly, I don’t see how a reasonable person could have any doubt after that. But wait, there’s more! The Republican governor of Hawaii — who was a huge McCain supporter — said she had her administration look into it and President Obama was born in Hawaii. She even named the hospital where he was born. (She erroneously stated that the name of the hospital was revealed in the head of the health department’s previous statement. But don’t you think it’s likely that the name of the hospital came up when her appointee reported back to her concerning what she found in the Hawaii official records?) But wait, there’s still more! The head of the Hawaii health department testified to a committee of the state legislature that President Obama had posted a copy of his certification of live birth on the Internet — thus confirming that what the President’s campaign posted was a document issued by the State of Hawaii. PLUS, as a result of a FOIA request, we learned that the federal government conducted an investigation of President Obama’s citizenship in 1967 and determined that he was a U.S. citizen because he was born in Hawaii.

    Of course, there’s even more — announcements in newspapers and the like. But, JLF, on the basis of that information, I honestly don’t understand how anyone could have a reasonable doubt as to whether President Obama was born in Hawaii. Is it possible that the federal government might have screwed up its investigation in 1967? Unlikely, but I guess. Is it possible that the head of the Hawaii department of health and the head of vital records in a Republican administration misconstrued a record as stating that President Obama was born in Hawaii when he wasn’t? Well, no, that doesn’t seem even remotely possible. Is it possible that the federal government screwed up its investigation in 1967 — before any of this became a political issue — AND the relevant officials in a Republican administration in Hawaii in 2008 and 2009 both screwed up and their errors both went in the same direction? No, that doesn’t strike me as possible. I think we’re well past the point of “reasonable doubt.” There’s no doubt. The President was born in Hawaii.

    JLF, if you’re still here, could you tell me why you maintain doubt in the face of all that evidence?

  75. SueDB says:

    Due to the temporary closure of the Birfer hunting season on Christmas/Festivus/Winter Day (in recognition of all faiths and no faith at all – holiday,) the Department of UnNatural Resources has authorized an increase to 2 Birfers per tag until sundown New Years Day. The bag limit will be 4 Birfers in your possession as long as at least 2 are field dressed.

  76. JLF says:

    @Edna Nicholson

    I noticed your post after I already signed off and to be honest I didn’t know if I
    was going to come back but then what you were asking seemed very familiar
    so I looked back and Big Guy asked the same and I didn’t answer him. An
    oversight on my part.

    I said: “All efforts to contest have been stymied”. Again, my poor command of the language caused confusion. What I wanted to say was all efforts to contest in
    court have been stymied. You said that over 70 cases have been smacked down
    in court, and if I read the court decisions it will be clear why none of these cases
    belonged in court.

    I recall the Hollister case which was dismissed by Judge James Robertson who stated:
    “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered
    and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year
    campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by the court.” Judge Robertson sought to assess Hollister with the entire cost, including attorney fees, of
    Obama’s defense in the litigation. He threatened Hollister’s attorney (Hemenway) with sanctions. The attorney responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision. Robertson ordered the attorney to explain why there should not be financial sanctions. The attorney complied, pointing out that the assumption of Obama’s eligibility “assumes facts not in evidence.”
    He also suggested that if there were to be sanctions, court rules would allow
    him to require the release of Obama’s birth information. “ If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all
    discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.”
    The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case
    and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get to the truth of
    those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery.”
    Robertson backed off, issuing only a reprimand to Hemenway.

    I think a blind man could see the court’s bias in this case. Judge Robertson wanted to
    stick it to Hollister and his attorney as hard as he could. My guess is to send a message
    to all who question Obama’s eligibility. The reason he didn’t do it is obvious. He didn’t want discovery. Nobody wants discovery today. Not the civilian court, not the military court.
    Let me correct that, discovery is okay in other cases but not in any case questioning
    eligibility. Strange isn’t it? This case was dismissed because it was blogged on the
    internet and decided there. Like theCertification of Live Birth.

    There is another case that comes to mind but right now I can’t remember the name of the plaintiff. When you research this case you should be able to locate it by the courts reason for dismissal. It was one of the first cases heard.

    The case was dismissed because the plaintiff lacked “standing” The judge went on to
    explain. He said that even if it were true that Obama was ineligible, he would not be
    injured (the plaintiff) any more than any other citizen. The Constitution be damned. No case will ever reach the discovery stage. I am having a hard time digesting the reasoning
    that basically says…. if a crime has been committed against one person, that person can pursue justice but if that crime is against all citizens the persuit of justice is denied. Which is the greater crime?

    I say this qualifies as being stymied.

  77. JLF says:

    @Dwight Sullivan

    Me too. I also am a “Show Me” kind of guy. His Hawaiian birth is not my only concern as to his eligibility but it is fair to say it is my chief concern.

    In March 2008 a lawsuit was filed to remove John McCain from the ballot
    because his natural-born status was also in doubt. John McCain immediately responded by showing his actual, original birth certificate to
    Congress.

    On June 12, 2008, about three months after McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what
    was called his “original birth certificate”–an image copy, not a paper copy,
    by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress or
    anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.

    Moreover, what Obama submitted for “release,” was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed. It was an abbreviated transcript of
    a birth record called a “Certification of Live Birth.” However the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript. Since a forged
    birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama’s actual birth record from
    ever being known. What makes a forgery?

    Many people who saw this image had said that it was “fake” and that the
    document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine. The image
    anomalies that they pointed out as proof of forgery are listed below:

    1) The image contains digital signatures of Photoshop
    2) Only one side of alleged COLB shown (COLB is two-sided)
    3) Missing second-fold line while first fold-line is shown
    4) Missing the embossed Seal of Hawaii
    5) Missing the State Registrar’s signature
    6) Unusual and unnatural pixilation between the letters of text date
    7) Original text was removed by pasting a layer of background over them
    8) Different text was typed onto a text layer and merged with background
    layer
    9) Pixel blocks of text data are different from the data headers
    10) Heavy and unnecessary sharpening of the whole image, except for
    the border
    11) Border was created as a separate layer and merged with other layers
    12) Border pattern is more blurred than the background
    13) Border pattern more transparent than those on genuine scans
    14) Top and bottom black border bars have less pixilation than text
    15) Border bars are more black in color than any of the text
    16) Absence of green, background pixels inside the border bar text
    17) White lines between border bars and pattern (both sides)
    18) Image colors are very different from scan images of real COLBs
    19) Lack of pixilation in black rectangle covering certificate number
    20) Different blocking artifacts from JPG compression found across the
    image

    How did Obama respond to these claims that what was posted on the internet was a forgery? Did he respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine? No.

    One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was
    added to the image to redact the COLB’s certificate number, and then
    resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect,
    changing the image itself. The following caveat appears on the COLB
    document: ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE

    If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all the information shown on Factcheck’s photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information we’ve seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12? What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?

    Other things to consider when trying to find the truth:

    Obama’s paternal grandmother said she.. “was in the delivery room in
    Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” She has since been put “off
    limits.” If you went to Kenya to interview her you would have to get
    permission from the Kenyan government.

    The ambassador of Kenya Peter Ogego says that Obama was born in Kenya and that his birth place has become a national shrine.

    Again here is a transcript of the Kenyan National Assembly on Nov. 5,
    2008 after Obama was elected. Over and over there are references to Obama being a “son of the soil” of Kenya. and a Kenyan. On page 3275 there is this passage:
    HOUSE SHOULD ADJOURN TO DISCUSS ELECTION OF MR. BARRACK OBAMA
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir,the President-elect Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour.

    Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes
    to determining whether whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as US president, the high court is “evading” the issue.

    It has been stated that Honolulu Queens Medical Center was the hospital
    Obama was born in until that was changed to Kapi’olani Medical Center.
    No reason was given for the change and the main stream media wasn’t
    curious enough to ask.

    Obama is currently using a social security number that was issued in Connecticut sometime between 1977-1979, even though Obama’s
    earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice
    cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii. There is no evidence his father or mother
    ever had a mailing address in Connecticut. The White House has refused to answer any questions about it.

    The East African Standard, a Kenyan newspaper on Monday July 27, 2004 had an article titled “Kenyan-Born Obama All Set For US Senate.

    There are articles even in “Pravda” questioning his eligibility. .

    I disagree that we are well past the point of “reasonable doubt.” I think we are at the point of “can we believe anything he says?”

    One last thing. I was asked, do I know of any person that was issued
    a COLB that was not born in Hawaii.. Yes I do. Certification of Live
    Birth documents are for people that don’t have Hawaiian birth certificates.
    Maya Soetoro, Obama’s half-sister born in Indonesia has a COLB courtesy of her grandmother Madelaine Dunham. Chiang kai-shek, a Chinese General and opponent of Mao tse-tung, also had a COLB courtesy of his Chinese relatives residing in Hawaii.

  78. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JLF,

    From the line breaks in your post, it’s apparent that you cut and pasted some or all of your response from another source. Would you please let us know what that source was? It will ease the rebuttal process a bit.

    Most or all of the points you made are refuted at length at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/. I highly recommend that site to you.

    I note that you didn’t address the point that Dr. Fukino and the registrar of vital records for the State of Hawai’i looked at original birth records and confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu. I have yet to see anyone offer a plausible reason why she would have said so (twice) if it weren’t true.

    I note that you also didn’t address the fact that the federal government investigated President Obama’s citizenship status in 1967 and determined he was a U.S. citizen because he was born in Hawai’i. I have yet to see anyone offer ANY reason — plausible or not — why such a document would exist from 1967 if it weren’t true. That document strikes me as particularly significant because it was prepared before anyone had any political reason to want a particular answer.

    I note that you also don’t address the point that Dr. Fukino testified before the Hawai’i Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations on 23 February 2010 that “President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.” Given that Dr. Fukino saw the original birth records, this confirms the legitimacy of the information posted on the Internet, including that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai’i. It also renders completely silly the notion that the document posted on the Internet is a forgery. Why would anyone forge a document when an actual document from the relevant state agency would reflect the same information?

    I note that you also don’t address the point that the Republican governor of Hawaii — who was an ardent supporter of Senator McCain’s — had her administration investigate the original records held by the State of Hawai’i and confirmed that President Obama was born in Hawai’i, naming the particular hospital where he was born.

    You disagree that we are well past reasonable doubt as to whether the President was born in Hawai’i, but you do so without refuting — or even discussing — any of the evidence set out above that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is no doubt that the President was born in Hawai’i. Do you have any reasonable explanation concerning the facts set out above that is inconsistent with the President having been born in Hawai’i?

  79. Dwight Sullivan says:

    p.s. — JLF, could you please provide a citation for the proposition that Chiang Kai Shek was issued a certification of live birth indicating he was born in Hawaii? Could you please also provide a citation supporting the proposition that Maya Soetoro was issued a certification of live birth indicating she was born in Hawaii even though she wasn’t?

  80. BigGuy says:

    @Dwight — I’ve just come across the signs of JLF”s reappearance, and his/her posts are so full of misstatements — long-debunked speculations and lies — that I have to think about whether I want to plough through all of them. Virtually every sentence contains an easily disproved falsehood.

    But let me comment on the two you raise in #84. I believe JLF is mistakenly referring to Chiang Kai Shek rather than Sun Yat-Sen. The latter did indeed have a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” falsely stating that he was born in Hawaii. However, it was issued in 1904, more than 50 years before Hawaii became a state. Our courts do not give nearly the deference to documents of the Territory of Hawaii that they do to documents from the State of Hawaii, which of course are covered by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (As far as I can tell, the Chiang Kai Shek fable originated with a single poster on Free Republic, but I could easily be wrong.) That is why I always issue the challenge in the form, “Show us a State of Hawaii COLB that falsely states that someone was born in Hawaii.”

    The one about Maya Soetoro was a long-standing myth originated by TechDude, a fake document expert who mysteriously appeared and disappeared early in the history of birtherism. It was a standard part of the birther saga until someone asked the Hawaii Department of Health to reveal the “index data” covering birth records in the name of Maya Soetoro. The response: “There is no record that responds to this request.”

    Very few birthers still claim that this one is true. What we’ve learned here is that JLF is willing to amass a lot of discredited falsehoods, cut and paste them, and present them as if they were credible.

    Because s/he has been civil in the past, I will make the assumption for now that the huge outpouring of falsity is based on ignorance rather than knowing deception.

  81. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Thanks, BigGuy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *