Thursday, November 27, 2008

Why the Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate

November 26, 2008
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
By Joe the Farmer

Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it's possible that he's not a natural born citizen, isn't eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate -- or any other "gate" in history?

Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because Factcheck.org, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so?

Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you'd hate to ruin your investment?

Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see 1.F. below), that you'd be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees?

Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who's convinced something's not right, but you're afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul-Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?

Fear not! Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.

Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures - unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he's just "another politician." Here's the outline:

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.
  1. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).
  2. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
  3. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
  4. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.
  5. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
  6. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
2. Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.
  1. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine."
  2. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino "ha[s] 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." That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.
  3. The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.
  4. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child's life.

    1. We don't know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama's birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.
    2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: "An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children."
    3. Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the "ease" of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: "Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently."
3. It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama's records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama's refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.

4. Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more-than-dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.
  1. Had he disclosed his vault copy in the Berg v. Obama lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn't disclosed because:

    1. He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;
    2. He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);
    3. He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a "victim." This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul-Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he's not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.
  2. His motion to dismiss the Berg case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a just-trust-me basis?
  3. This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See, "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down." Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.
The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing conspiracy, is what's the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people's watchdogs aren't.

The pen name Joe the Farmer pays tribute to Joe the Plumber, who had the audacity to ask a question.

6 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Re: Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

Answer. This was NOT the case in 1961. That law was passed after that date, and it never allowed (and still does not allow) anyone to obtain a Hawaii birth document that says that you are born in Hawaii when you are NOT born in Hawaii.

The reason for this is fairly obvious. If you could obtain a Hawaii birth certificate for someone who was not born in Hawaii, you would in effect be creating a US citizen when that person was not eligible to be a US citizen. Hawaii has always recognized that fact, and has not issued documents that say someone was born in Hawaii when they are not born in Hawaii.

Obama’s certification of live birth, shown on his own site Fightthesmears.com and on FactCheck.org and Polifact.com, states that he was born in Hawaii. In fact, it says he was born in Hawaii under place of birth (Honolulu), island of birth (Oahu) and county of birth (Honolulu). And the officials in Hawaii have looked into the files and confirmed that the certification is accurate.


Re: Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Answer, you should have said ONLY the Hawaii Department of Home Lands, because all the other state government departments accept the certified copy of the birth certificate (which in this case is called a certification of live birth) AND the US government does too. Yes the certification of live birth is accepted by the US State Department as evidence that someone was born in Hawaii in order to issue passports. In Obama’s case a passport was issued based on the Hawaii certification of live birth.

But what about the Hawaii Department of Home Lands? That is a special racial program of Hawaii which requires that someone not merely be born in Hawaii but a native Hawaiian in terms of race. Race is not an issue in ordinary birth documents, and it should not be, but in this program it is. I think that probably a special racial program may be unconstitutional, but that has nothing to do with Obama who is not a native Hawaiian in that sense of the word. He was born in Hawaii, that makes him a US citizen by birth.

lgstarr said...

smrstrauu - the Donofrio case appearing before the Supreme Court on December 5th does not have anything to do with the Hawaiian birth certificate.

Anonymous said...

Regardless, the facts are facts. 1. Gas prices have gone down. 2.Obama is already making it easier for you and I to have access to money! Most people don't realize how much money there is out there. During economic times like this, there is more money to be had than ever. Because of the bailouts and economy, lenders are bending over backwards to bail you out too. Believe it or not, there is people getting tons of cheap money nowdays to start businesses, buy homes, pay off debt, and more. Search for your Bailout

lgstarr said...

Mberenis - you are either a left wing loon or you just wanted to publicize your link, or both. Whatever has been done has been done by Bush, not Obama who is not yet President.

kismetique said...

No, the certification of live birth is NOT accepted by the US State Department as evidence to issue passports. I know this for a fact, as I first submitted my COLB to the USSD for a passport and was told that under no circumstances would this be acceptable and that I HAD to submit a certified copy of my original long-form Birth Certificate.

Now - if this is somehow different for people born in Hawaii or born of a different race than me - then I find that to be descriminatory in nature and perhaps I should look into legal remedies since I had to provide something more than Obama did to receive his passport.

The bottom line is this: while it is highly probable he was born in Hawaii - it is slightly possible he was not. This question is not unreasonable or without merit. Some of the facts that even Obama has admitted to are:
Kenyan Father
Adopted by Indonesian
Educated in Indonesia

Now - each one of those pieces of information give a slight reason why he might have some problem meeting the eligibility requirements for POTUS. Therefore, why not just provide a certified copy of your long-form BC and be done with it - put all the questions to bed.....but he won't - which is the most worrisome issue of all.

PhotoGal said...

"No, the certification of live birth is NOT accepted by the US State Department as evidence to issue passports. I know this for a fact, as I first submitted my COLB to the USSD for a passport and was told that under no circumstances would this be acceptable and that I HAD to submit a certified copy of my original long-form Birth Certificate."

Strangely enough, the State Department's web page makes no such claim.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

Obama's COLB has the raised/embossed/pressed seal, the registrar's signature, and the date it was filed. The whole thing meets State Department requirements. NOWHERE does it say you need the original long form bc.