It is time to focus on REAL issues, not imaginary ones.
A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama's upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama's numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.
Obama's birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama's birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement.
By refusing media requests for a look at the actual paper birth certificate, Obama's campaign gave sly backhanded assistance to the forgery hype. The internet release of the birth certificate via hyper-partisan website Daily Kos on June 12 before posting it on a campaign website was likely calculated to fuel the frenzy. This is Obama's Gramscian strategy designed to redirect the opposition down a blind alley. It was so successful that Hawai`i government offices found themselves inundated with telephone calls from mainland voters in the days before the November 4 election.
Since Hawai`i law forbids the release of birth certificates to anybody not authorized by Barack Obama or his family, Obama further fed the paranoia by choosing not to grant such permissions. A World Net Daily story claiming Hawai`i's Republican Governor Linda Lingle "sealed" the birth certificate is totally false. The governor's office has asked for a retraction. The forgery story was also boosted by video claims that Obama's Kenyan grandmother stated that Obama "is a son of this village" — a phrase which can have many different meanings.
For Obama to have been born in Kenya, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. would have had to fly from Honolulu to Mombasa, give birth in a substandard third world hospital, fly back and then somehow arrange for a fraudulent birth certificate to be entered by the State of Hawai`i on August 8, 1961 (at the time governed by Republican William Quinn). They would have also somehow planted the phony birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser (at the time edited by Republican Thurston Twigg-Smith) and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Hawai`i's current Republican Governor Linda Lingle would also have to be complicit in the cover-up as would all of the leftist 1960s University of Hawaii friends of Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr – among them US Rep. Neil Abercrombie.
In 1961, the roundtrip flight to Kenya would have been a very expensive, pointless, and time consuming epic journey for two starving students. Barack Obama Sr. had only been able to come study at UH Manoa with a free ticket on a donated charter flight with other Kenyan students.
Obama benefited from creating an opposition which seemed to be standing by the side of the road impotently pointing to a piece of paper as if it could stop 63 million voters from anointing their "chosen one." Birth certificate lawsuit plaintiff Phil Berg is a Democrat and whether he understands it or not, he has done great work on behalf of his party.
It is time for folks to stop being played by the Obama campaign and drop this counterproductive "phony birth certificate" nonsense. Obama opponents can find plenty of real material by focusing on the hard-left alliances, stated positions, personnel appointments and policy actions of the Obama administration and of the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Funny, I don’t recall being particularly obsessed with Obama’s birth certificate as Mr. Walden makes me. In fact, this will be the very first time I have commented on the subject at all. Also, I don’t recall conservatives, generally, spending much time on it. Oh, sure, there are always some who indulge in this kind of speculation, but this one got more attention from Obama’s defenders then his detractors. It was brought up in these pages once or twice and some discussion given it, but mostly it was decided this is more a problem of Obama holding his cards too close (on this and more substantial matters) for our liking than we were concerned he’s a ‘real’ American. Our criticism was more for morons who elect anyone without knowing much about them or their real agenda. Even the guys who dug up the evidence aren’t claiming he wasn’t born in Hawaii. All they said was the copy posted on Obama’s website has some irregularities suggesting tampering or forgery, and urging Obama either release a certified copy or some other evidence the copy posted is genuine.
The matter of Hawaii denying WND access to Obama’s ‘sealed’ birth record is easily put to rest. The Governor’s office denied Obama’s records were sealed. At the same time, Hawaii state law prevents state officials handing out birth records to just anyone. Subsequent to the Corsi article and on hearing the Hawaii government’s denial, additional requests were made by various interests (including major news media) and denied on the same basis as the WND denial. So, while technically correct that the record is not sealed (there is no court injunction sealing it, Obama can request and get copies), it is, nonetheless, generally unavailable. This is confuting a legal term (courts sealing birth records in cases like adoption) with a straightforward complaint; indulging in semantics. As far as the general public is concerned, Obama’s birth record is off limits; which was the point Corsi made. Taking this further is whether, in the case of elected officials, we need some better mechanism of public accountability to assure us the person we elect meets the requirements spelled out for the office they seek. Certainly, that is something inadequately addressed under current practice as demonstrated by this election. As Presidential elections are governed by each state, the states are the keepers of their own birth records, and it is the states who make the rules under which candidates are allowed on ballots. Therefore, maybe there should be a provision requiring certification be made by each state's board of elections including proof of birth prior to placing candidates names on ballots to avoid a repeat of such manipulation in future.
Mr. Walden, with all due respect, you have not done all your homework on Obama's Birth Certificate.
Please note that this is the statement from DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino;
"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,"
Notice that she says that there is an original there but she is not saying what is ON that original.
Here is an image of a 1963 Hawaiin long form, typewritten vault copy of a birth certificate;
http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
Notice on section 7c. there is a space to put your County, State OR Foriegn Country that you were born in. Back in the 60's it was very legal to actually be born someplace else, even another conutry, and still recieve an Hawaiin BC.
So, with that being said, when and until, Mr. Obama shows this particular document to a panel of judges and forensic specialists, I, for one, will not accept that he is Constitutionally able to sit in the Oval Office as my President. He and the DNC have had since August to produce this document and have failed to do so.
The Constituion, the one that our forefathers have bled and died for is to be upheld "the Constitution's criteria for presidential eligibility are not 'suggestions' but instead are mandatory requirements."
He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing.
"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." —Samuel Adams
Republicans are routinely hounded from office on charges far more trivial than this. It would be most appropriate if Obama was hoisted by his own petard and was droven from office using tactics he himself used to gain power. This is the kind of issue that is needed to distract his administration from implementing his more substantive, and far more destructive, programs. As Ann Coulter said, we Rebublicans owe it to Obama to show his the same support that Democrats showed Bush.
deb65 has misread the birth certificate that she attached. Box 7c is for the "usual residence" of the mother. The information for the child is limited to the location on Hawaii (for example box 6b is for the "island").
MitchF is right about deb65. I have been doing my own research on this too. When I found that 1963 version of a long form birth certificate, I thought, initially, that on section 7c., was what it was stating at first too but saw that it was in fact based on the mother's residence not the child.
HOWEVER, there still remains serious questions about the authenticity of Obama's document as shown on several web sites.
Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta (below)
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama — because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" — must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.
Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.
Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later — and there is no evidence that he was — he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and — if forgery or misrepresentation were involved — he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.
But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.
But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.
But until the certified paper birth document is produced — either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state — the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution
Something simple: Take a minute to look at the first certificate Obama claimed was real. Notice his fathers race is indicated as "AFRICAN". Check your history on this. In the 60's, authorities did not use the term "AFRICAN" to describe a newborn's race. In the 60's, the word "NEGRO", or "COLORED" was used. Looks like the person that forged the document let his own personal (liberal) politically correct posture get in the way of an accurate forgery.
Also consider:
1. Why have there been no less than 3 separate certificates posted? How many do you have? What kind of person would do such a thing, let alone someone running for leader of the free world.
2. Why has the Obama legal team fought off three separate lawsuits in an effort to block full disclosure?
3. You can get a copy of your own COLB for about $10.00. Why hasn't Obama?
4. Why are all of his College records sealed?
Andrew, there are standards for journalism. Are you a "journalist"? If you are trying to be one, step it up a notch. People want the truth Andrew.
Sounds like we are moving onto the horns of a constitutional dilemma. The constitution is very explicit in the requirement to hold certain offices but how is this requirement enforced? Seems like the kind of thing that any citizen could appropriately question but Berg (a Democrat) found out otherwise, at least until the Supremes make some comment. Maybe out of all of this there will emerge a process for validating that a candidate/incumbent is legitimately meeting constitutional requirements. Lacking that why have a constitution anyway…oops isn't that Obama's position on the constitution it is flawed and must be interpreted by good meaning judges?
Take a minute to look at the first certificate Obama claimed was real. Notice his fathers race is indicated as "AFRICAN". Check your history on this. In the 60's, authorities did not use the term "AFRICAN" to describe a newborn's race.
Then it's just as well that they used it instead as a description of his father. Who was an African—as in from Africa.
In the 60's, the word "NEGRO", or "COLORED" was used. Looks like the person that forged the document let his own personal (liberal) politically correct posture get in the way of an accurate forgery.
Or it could be that the person who initially took down the information in 1961 wrote down the accurate information for Barack Obama, Sr.
I didn't vote for Obama (nor did I vote for McCain), but I am endlessly entertained by these conspiracy scenarios, lawsuits, and legions of amateur document examiners all checking the “kerning”. Please keep it going. I haven't enjoyed an electoral season quite this much in all my 28 years.
Great piece written by Mr. Bob Stapler on Novemebr 8. The closing paragraph is particularly important to consider.
Go here (if you have not already been):
http://thevalleytruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/the-supreme-court-and-obamas-birth-certificate/
for an[other] interesting and apparently well-thought bit of banter on the matter.
As far as Mr. Walden's dismissal of the 'search for the missing birth certificate' as heading down so many useless rabbit trails (for lack of a simpler/ kinder way to say it), I find his subtle acceptance (admiration? surely not…) for what may have been a
"Gramscian Strategy" a little frustrating, if not disturbing (?).
If that is all it was/ is/ has been, and there truly is nothing more to this birth certificate debacle than a 'successful' effort to confuse 'the oBama opposition', the electorate at large, then it presents a potentially even more sinister facet of who oBama and his 'team' really are.
For those that did not follow the hyperlink located in paragrph three of the good Mr. Walden's original post, or who are otherwise unaware of who/ what Mr. Anthony Gramsci was- for a Presidential Candidate to engage in outright
subversion and deploy tactics that weaken if not undermine the credibility and stature of the office he is hoping to be elected to… Then he MUST be interested in a certain flavor of 'change' that even A. Gramsci himslef would be averse to.
And, this 'my friends' is truly disconcerting.