Will Obama Be Our Next President?
In no less than 15 states lawsuits have been filed demanding that Senator Barack Obama produce his authentic birth certificate. Lower courts have dismissed most of these cases. One case of note has made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
An attorney named Philip J. Berg from Pennsylvania filed suit and a lower Federal court dismissed it saying that he didn’t have standing. In fact, that judge said that the only people that could challenge a presidential candidates citizenship was the United States Congress.
Berg pushed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The long & short of this is that the outcome has yet to be decided. While the Supreme Court disagreed with some of Berg’s filings they sided with him enough for 4 of the justices led by Justice David Souter to order now President-elect Obama, the DNC and the Federal Elections Commission to produce the original vault copy of his birth certificate by December 1, 2008. That’s this Monday!
So far no news has been reported about a response from Obama, the DNC or the FEC. It’s unclear what the Supreme Court will do if Obama doesn’t produce the document. If the document is produced then Berg will be permitted to respond.
The reason this has become such a problem for Obama is because he has refused to produce the original document thus far. Hawaii permits American parents to register children born abroad as naturalized citizens and issues a certificate of live birth. However, naturalized citizens are not permitted to run for President of the United States. Only natural-born U.S. citizens can become our president. The copy of his certificate of live birth posted on his website doesn’t list the hospital he was born in or the doctor’s signature. It’s only an assumption that he was born in Hawaii because the certificate of live birth was issued there. Some of Obama’s relatives claim that they were present at his birth in Kenya. The only way to know Obama’s true birthplace is from his authentic birth certificate and he has refused to release it. With so many legal actions filed against him what motive could he possibly have for not producing the document and making all of these naysayers go away? His refusal to release the authentic document makes him look guilty. It suggests that Obama has something to hide. What exactly is he hiding?
The Electoral College is supposed to meet on December 13, 2008 to actually select our next President. It’s a common misperception that our votes select the president. Our votes typically tell our state leaders who our state would vote for then the winning party selects their electorates to send to the meeting of the electoral college to cast their votes in favor of the candidate that won that particular state. What if Obama’s name isn’t on the ballot for the Electoral College vote on December 13th?
Certainly, the Chief Justice wouldn’t deliver the oath of office to a man who has defied his court. In fact, the Supreme Court could decertify the results that declared Obama the winner. Should that happen what are the options for the American people?
If the Supreme Court declares Obama ineligible then Joe Biden couldn’t assume the Presidency because he didn’t run for the presidency. Biden ran as the vice-presidential candidate and is only supposed to assume the presidency should something happen to the President. If Obama is declared ineligible then Biden wouldn’t have a President to step in for.
If Obama isn’t eligible then it seems logical that the next eligible candidate with the most votes would be declared the winner of the presidential election. That would be Senator John McCain. The American voters spoke clearly when they voted for Obama. They chose the Democrat, but could end up with a Republican instead. If those supporting the Democrats in 2000 thought they had something to be bitter about before then just wait and see their reactions if Obama is disqualified. There is sure to be plenty of temper tantrums thrown all across this nation should that come to pass.
posted by streetjust @ 3:02 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Re: While the Supreme Court disagreed with some of Berg’s filings they sided with him enough for 4 of the justices led by Justice David Souter to order now President-elect Obama, the DNC and the Federal Elections Commission to produce the original vault copy of his birth certificate by December 1, 2008. That’s this Monday!
This is simply not true. The only one who ever said that the Supreme Court asked to see Obama’s birth certificate was Berg, and he claimed that Justice Souter asked for it.
In fact, neither the court nor Souter asked to see any document. The date is merely the one by which Obama, the DNC and the US federal election commission (represented by the Solicitor General) may reply to Berg’s suit, which is NOT about the birth certificate but over whether Berg has standing to sue. In the unlikely case that the SC accepts Berg’s case and decides for him, they would send the matter to a lower court to see the evidence.
The Supreme Court never looks at evidence. It is not a court of the facts. It decides matters of constitutional law and federal law. In this case, the issue is whether Berg has standing to sue.
That is why Berg was wrong when he said that the court asked to see the birth certificate. The court didn’t ask because it is not a court that judges facts. It is not set up to authenticate documents, Etc. Since it is not a judge of the facts, it would not ask to see the certificate.
Re: Hawaii permits American parents to register children born abroad as naturalized citizens and issues a certificate of live birth.
Two things about this: (1) at the time (1963) this was not possible. Only persons born in Hawaii could be registered in Hawaii in 1963; and (2) as explained by the officials in Hawaii, they can register an individual born abroad under Hawaii law and issue a certification of live birth BUT NOT A CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH THAT SAYS THAT THE PERSON WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
This is for obvious reasons. If a person who was born in Japan, say, got a Hawaii certification of live birth that said he was born in Hawaii, he would be a US citizen. Hawaii has no intention of creating a loophole in which thousands or millions of foreigners can become US citizens.
Since the certification of live birth says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii have looked into the file and confirmed that the certification of live birth is accurate, you have to believe that they are lying to believe that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.
Re: Obama having "refused" to show his real (vault copy) birth certificate. This is not true either. No one has ASKED to see it.
The law suits have demanded to see it, claiming that they have the right to see that file. Obama might have shown that file if he was asked, but if someone demands to see it, claiming that they have the right to see it, it is human nature to oppose the demand and preserve your right not to show something.
The hospital birth certificate is in the files and IF a court asks to see it, then it can be shown. Until then, it does not have to be put up for public scrutiny on the Web. IF a court asks to see it, that is the proper place to show it. IF that does not happen, then we can be confident that the document does exist because the officials in Hawaii say that it does, and they have no reason to lie.
By the way, do you really think that Obama's mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy at a time when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa? And then, if she went to Africa, there are no pictures of her in Africa or of the child with his grandparents? Why not? Was Obama's mother conspiring to hide the photographs in 1963?
To smrstrauss
I found Justice Souter's docket website and you appear to be correct about what the date represents. The website also says that the defendants have filed a waiver for their right to respond. We should see this matter cleared up fairly quickly now.
To smsrstrauss:
Your understanding of Hawaiin law also seems ot be correct. However, a conspiracy would not need ot be initiated in 1963 for Obama to have a fake certification of live birth posted on his website. The certification he currently has poste dis not the original. The date the document was adopted tells us that along with the word "laser" following the date. I'm not sure what country his mother would have travelled from to visit Kenya in her 9th month of pregnancy. Isn't it possible that the requirement for a yellow fever shot may not have been applied to her if she travelled from another country or if a previous vaccination was still good? I think there are still plenty of questions about his birth.
Re: The certification he currently has poste dis not the original. The date the document was adopted tells us that along with the word "laser" following the date.
Yes you are right that it is not the original document. Why should it be?
It is a certification by the state of Hawaii at the date requested by the person asking for the certificate that the live birth in question occurred and these are the salient facts. This was done in Obama's case when he asked for the document, which was in 2007 or 2008. Of course it was a laser printer, what else?
The essential point is that the document represents the authentication by the state of Hawaii that it has evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii on the date stated. The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is in the file, but it is unnecessary to show it, since the certification of live birth is a legal document and since the authorities in Hawaii have confirmed it is accurate.
Here’s what it would take for Obama to have been born in Kenya.
(1) It would have taken a lifetime of covering up by his mother before and after the birth of Obama in Kenya (IF he were born in Kenya of course).
She could not have told a friend at college that she was excited that she soon would be travelling to Kenya to see her in-laws because, of course, a friend could have remembered it all the way to 2008. Or the friend could have told another friend.
And, she could not have told a friend after the birth in Kenya “Say, let me tell you, it’s really an experience giving birth in Africa” because a friend could have remembered it even to 2008, or the friend could have told another friend, who would have remembered.
And, she could not have told even her son when he was a kid or a teenager because kids and teenagers tend to talk, and the friends that they have told could have remembered it even to 2008.
Even though she went to Kenya to see her in-laws and was presumably proud that she was doing that, she did not have any pictures taken with them or leave any pictures of her with them. Or, she or Obama himself arranged for all the photos to be burned in the years following that trip.
So, in order to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, a lot of what is normal about taking trips and talking frankly about your life has to be eliminated. It is normal to take photos, but there are no photos. It is normal to tell people about trips, but no one was told (or they are all dead or sworn to secrecy, which is hard to believe in itself).
(2) Obama’s mother, Ann, would have had to travel to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy.
This is intrinsic to the born-in-Kenya theory.
But let’s examine it. For most pregnant women, even today, if they had a chance to travel before the ninth month of pregnancy, or after it, they would. Why? Because it is easier to get around and see things when you are not carrying all that weight, and because there is always a chance of sickness. This was even more the case in 1961, when the statistics of stillbirth were higher than now.
So, if they went to Kenya at all (which is unlikely because of item 1 above), it is more likely that they traveled before the ninth month, such as during the Christmas break from college, or Spring break, or right away in June when the college ended courses for the summer. Or, they planned to travel after the birth, taking Obama with them, but never made the trip because a year later the couple was breaking up. It is highly unlikely that they took the trip in the ninth month of pregnancy, and even more unlikely LATE in the ninth month, when the birth might occur on a plane or in a car in Kenya.
Also, since it is a long trip, and they did not have direct flights Hawaii-Africa at the time, it would be more likely that they would want to see some of the sights along the way. Doing that makes a long and expensive trip seem more worthwhile, since in the process of going to Kenya you also get to see New York and London and maybe Rome or Cairo on the way to Kenya, or the other way via Tokyo. But to do this would mean that you planned the trip to take it when when walking around and seeing the sights is not so difficult for a pregnant woman, such as as many months as possible before the birth, or after the birth.
(3) Obama’s mother would not have wanted to travel to Kenya when she was pregnant because to travel to Africa in those days required a Yellow Fever shot, which is not good during pregnancy.
(4) IF Obama’s mother had traveled to Kenya in 1961, there would be official records of that trip available in Kenya.
According to the theorists of Obama’s birth in Kenya, this is explained by the Kenyan government having sealed Obama’s files, which otherwise would have shown his Kenyan birth documents, his mother’s arrival in Kenya, and his own travel documents (or his being entered on his father or mother’s passport) after his birth in Kenya.
But to say explain the absence of such official documents to the Kenyan government requires it to be part of the conspiracy, and it has to be a universally successful conspiracy in Kenya. By that I mean that not only is the Kenyan government covering up, but all members of the government or hospitals who may have had a chance to look into either the immigration or birth records must be keeping the secret. That means that many people who knew about Obama’s mother being in Kenya or about the birth in Kenya must be keeping the secret. But why should they? They might mention the fact that they saw the files at a bar for a free drink. Or they might bring the story to a newspaper, or a wire service.
(5) Not merely the Kenyan government has to be party to the conspiracy.
The officials in the state of Hawaii have to be conspiring as well. You will recall that in early November they issued a press release and subsequently were interviewed by the Honolulu Advertiser, saying that they had looked into Obamas’ files and from the contents of those files could confirm the accuracy of the Certification of Live Birth that Obama has posted on Fightthesmears.com and shown to FactCheck.org and Polifact.com.
There are some conspiracy theorists who assert that what the officials in Hawaii did not say was that they had looked into the files and found a KENYAN birth certificate in the files. If so, they were intentionally misleading and were part of the conspiracy. To say that the certificate of live birth, which says on it that Obama was born in Honolulu, on the Island of Oahau, and in the County of Honolulu, is accurate after seeing a document from Kenya is a lie, and if it were shown that Obama really had been born in Kenya after giving the impression that he was born in Hawaii, the officials would be subject to prosecution for fraud. They would be very very unlikely to do that.
So, the officials in Hawaii and FactCheck and Polifact would have to be part of the conspiracy.
(6) On the other side of the story, the only “facts” that seem to weigh against the officials from Hawaii’s evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and the vast improbability of his mother traveling in the ninth month of pregnancy, is the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, who apparently said that she was present at his birth in Kenya.
There are a number of explanations for this: the most obvious being that she did not understand the question, the one that is not so very nice is that she is an old lady. The point to remember about this interview (and I urge you to listen to it again) is that it was not conducted in order to obtain useful evidence that Obama was either born or not born in Kenya. It was designed to get a “yes” to the question whether she had been present when he was born.
If the interview had been a fair investigation of whether Obama had been born in Kenya, it would have asked questions to demonstrate that Obamas’ grandmother understood the question or that she was not confused about being “present.”
In such cases, it is normal to ask verifying questions along the following lines: “How long were Obama’s parents in Kenya before the birth?” “Did they travel to your village first, or go to the hospital and deliver the child first?” “How many days did Obams’s mother spend in hospital after delivering the child?” “In what month was the birth?” “What hospital?” And then there are questions along these lines: “If he was born in Kenya, why aren’t there any photos of him with his grandparents in Kenya?”
(7) Other than the grandmother, who is on tape, there are also claims that other Obama relatives in Kenya said the same thing, that he was born in Kenya. However, these reports all stem from the same sources, Corsi and WND, and have not been verified by anyone else. And, they also have not been asked such questions as how long Obama’s parents were in Kenya before the birth and why there are no photos.
Re: the simple question: “Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?”
The first answer to this is that a certification of live birth is a birth certificate, but not in the sense of being the original document issued either by the hospital or by the state at the time of birth. But it is a birth certificate in the sense of being a document issued by the state relevant to the birth and declaring that the person was born at that time and in that place.
But you may say, “why hasn’t he released his original birth certificate?” The first answer is that it is unnecessary. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that there is a document in the files showing that he was born in Hawaii. The certification of live birth, with the location of birth being in the USA, is enough for the US state department to issue passports, and in this case it has.
A longer answer would be along the following lines: Has anyone prior to this election asked to see the birth certificate of any president or presidential candidate before? I mean, did we ask to see Tom Jefferson’ s birth certificate, Tyler’s, Polk’s, Lincoln’s, Wilson’s, Hoover’s, FDR’s, JFK’s or either of the two Bushes’?
But in this case, the person has already shown his certification of live birth. Despite that a few people are asking that he show even more than that.
Why, since the certification of live birth proves his birth in the USA, since it is incredible to think that his mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy and kept the secret all her life, and since the only ones who are asking for him to POST his original birth certificate are right-wing bloggers, should he do it?
To be sure, there are still some law cases pending, which might have the effect of requiring Obama to show his hospital birth certificate. IF so, there is an original birth certificate, in the files, (we know because the officials in Hawaii said so) and Obama can arrange to have it shown to the court. A court would be the right place to show it, not on-line, and a court would have the facilities to authenticate such a document. But unless a court asks to see it, why should he post it?
IF a court doesn’t ask to see it, then what? Well, you can keep on thinking that he was born in Kenya, although there is no evidence and it is most unlikely, or you can get on with your life. Did you know that there are still some people who believe that the US government continues to hide the bodies of aliens in Rosewell, NM?
To smrstrauss:
Why should the original be produced? When we’re talking about a man becoming the President of our nation we should know for certain what country he was born in. Even the copy that he posted on his website doesn’t have the certification information on it required by any government agency to authenticate it yet you assume that it’s authentic. It’s missing the seal and signature. The claim has been made that those are on the back of a Hawaiian certificate. When posting only the front on a website it gives the same result as one not authenticated. You make a compelling argument for why we should just believe what Obama says is fact. The fact is that if he just produced the document then you and others like you in the press wouldn’t have to keep making excuses for him and this whole matter would go away. Obama has counted on the press and the American voter just accepting what he says as truth. That’s how he got elected in the first place. Let’s see some documented proof of Obama’s birth and stop making excuses for the man.
Again, you make a good argument for why his mother wouldn’t want to travel to Kenya. The bottom line is that reason may or may not have played into her travel plans. His mother was married. We don’t know what kind of people she or her husband were. We don’t know if the man ruled the roost and if what he said was considered the rule. What if he wanted his son born in his homeland? If the man ruled the household then Barack would have been born in Kenya. You say that there would have been records of the Obamas trip to Kenya. That’s what one would expect. That’s one of the reasons why Corsi went to Kenya. However, when he started asking questions he was detained by Kenyan authorities and then kicked out of the country. I’m sure this had absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister of Kenya who Obama campaigned for and who calls himself Barack’s cousin.
Re: Why should the original be produced? When we’re talking about a man becoming the President of our nation we should know for certain what country he was born in.
What do you mean by "produced?" If you mean shown to a court of law, if a court of law asks to see it, we all agree. IF a court asks to see it. And, only if a court asks to see it.
But, if you mean on line, why?
First the certification of live birth is an official document. It is THE official document that the state of Hawaii issues when it is asked to send a birth certificate. It says that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii say that it is valid. And, why should they lie?
To post any other document on line, without a court asking to see it, would merely put another document out there for right-wing bloggers to claim was forged. So the right place to show such a document is to a court, which is set up to authenticate documents. IF a court asks to see the document, then it exists and can be given to the court under court order.
But you can say, why does he oppose the cases in which he people are asking to see his document? But in fact it is not merely Obama, but the Federal Election Commission, in some cases state election commissions, the Democratic National Committee and the Hawaii Department of Health that have opposed these case. The latter is opposing someone who asserts that he has the RIGHT to see birth files, even if Obama does not want him to.
It is very different to oppose someone who insists that they have a right over your private documents and refusing a valid request to see a document. IF a newspaper (say the newspapers in Hawaii) had asked to see the original document, and Obama had refused to show it, then you could say that Obama refused to show it.
But let us put this into some kind of perspective: (1) It is crazy to think that Obama's mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy, when she had to get a Yellow Fever shot; (2) There is no physical evidence from Kenya that she was ever in Kenya or that Obama was born at a hospital there; (3) The official documents of Hawaii and the officials of Hawaii say he was born in Kenya; (4) We have never demanded that a president show a birth certificate before. We did not ask FDR for his birth certificate, or JFK, or Nixon, or the two Bushes; (5) with the exception of the lawsuits, which request that the documents be shown to a COURT, only the right-wing blogs ask that the documents be shown, and what they mean is shown on line.
Why should Obama post something on line when it is (1) unnecessary; (2) only the right-wing blogs are asking for it; (3) would inevitably draw people who claim that it is forged?
To smrstrauss:
I agree, let’s put this into perspective.
1) You claim that she needed a yellow fever shot. That is a requirement of the U.S. and may or may not have been a requirement of any other country she may have been traveling from to get to Kenya or a requirement of Kenya. The yellow fever shot lasts for about 3 years I think. I would have to find my own shot records to confirm this, but I know that its not a shot required annually. So, its possible that she already had one that was still valid. This whole yellow fever shot requirement is a longshot and doesn’t have any relevance to the issue at hand.
2) Obama has relatives in Kenya that are high ranking officials in the government there. Remember, his cousin is the Prime Minister. Again, when Corsi tried to search for the evidence he was detained and deported. We don’t know whether the evidence exists or not because the Kenyan government won’t allow people to look for it.
3) The “official” document that Obama has posted doesn’t say jack because we have no evidence that it’s “official”. There is no official seal or doctor’s signature. Without the official seal it’s not an official document. All we have is the “say so” of some officials in Hawaii. Having spent nearly 3 decades working for the government I know that the bigshots that give the press conferences aren’t the ones that actually do the legwork. Chances are that they were most likely given information by their subordinates. It doesn’t take a conspiracy to be fed misinformation and then repeat that misinformation as fact. All it takes is one misguided, ill trained or incompetent person to give the wrong information and pass it up his/her chain of command.
4) Similar birth issues came up with Goldwater and McCain. They weren’t asked to produce their birth certificates because they admitted where they were born. Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state and McCain was born in Panama on a military installation. This isn’t a new trick dreamed up by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” as you would like to believe. It’s a long-time Democrat tactic dating all the way back to 1964 and libs are bothered now because it’s being applied to one of their own.
5) Let him show the original document to a court. I would have preferred that the issue be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court so it could be over once and for all. I’ll be content with a Federal court as long as the court wasn’t politically motivated. You’re the one that says it needs to be posted online. I never said that. However, if Obama was going to post anything on his website he probably should have posted the original document to preclude this whole mess from happening.
To smrstrauss:
re:(3) The official documents of Hawaii and the officials of Hawaii say he was born in Kenya;
That is from your last comment. I'm not sure how I overlooked it the first time. I'm sure that it's just a typo, right? Right?
Re: "There is no official seal or doctor’s signature. Without the official seal it’s not an official document."
There IS an official seal. See: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
and look down the pictures to see the one that says "the raised seal."
Than you for pointing out my typo. Obama was born in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii confirm his birth certificate (which has a raised seal) that he was born in Hawaii.
Re: “This whole yellow fever shot requirement is a longshot and doesn’t have any relevance to the issue at hand.”
Okay, while the need to get a Yellow Fever shot makes it unlikely, I will admit it is possible. So, let’s imagine something that is even more unlikely.
Imagine a family of three: Father, mother and infant, traveling to Hawaii on a plane or a boat. There are other people on the plane or boat, so there could be witnesses to the fact that this family of three were on the plane or boat.
Now, let us imagine that the mother and father, after the trip on the plane or boat, goes to the official records office of Hawaii and fills out a form that says: “This child was born in Hawaii.”
The statement on the official record that the child was born in Hawaii when he was born in Kenya is a lie, and it is usually illegal to lie on government forms. Yet, not only are the couple willing to lie about their child’s place of birth, they are willing to lie about it despite the fact that someone on the plane or boat may recall they were on the plane or boat, which could lead to someone finding out that the statement they made was a lie. Now most people do not want to lie even when there are no bad consequences, but in this case, if they lied on an official form, then Obama’s father, who was on a student visa, would run the risk of losing his visa or his scholarship. Not worthwhile.
So what have we got, we still have the mother having to travel in the ninth month of pregnancy. We still have the need for a Yellow Fever shot (though she could have gotten it before as you say) and we have the need to lie about the place of birth on an official form.
Hawaii’s laws allow infants who were born outside of Hawaii to receive a certification of live birth, but that certification still requires that the location of birth be accurate. Thus, if the parents had said: “He was born in Kenya,” Obama’s certification would have read on it: “location of birth: Kenya.” So, Obama was either born in Hawaii, or the parents had to lie about the location of birth because Obama’s certification of live birth says that he was born in Hawaii.
Re: “Again, when Corsi tried to search for the evidence he was detained and deported. We don’t know whether the evidence exists or not because the Kenyan government won’t allow people to look for it.
Sadly, only Corsi says this, and Corsi is not exactly an impartial member of the press that we can rely on. If the AP or UPI or AFP or Time or Newsweek, or the US Chamber of Commerce in Kenya (there is one in virtually all countries) confirms that Corsi was arrested and that they cannot search for records because of the government, THEN there is something to this allegation. Otherwise, the fact that there are no documents from Kenya means that there are no documents in Kenya.
Re: “ The “official” document that Obama has posted doesn’t say jack because we have no evidence that it’s “official”. There is no official seal or doctor’s signature.”
As I posted earlier, there IS an official seal, and why should the officials lie. They are members of a Republican Administration. Moreover, if someone were able to get documents in Kenya showing that Obama was born in Kenya (which is logically possible if there are documents in Kenya, since the “seal” cannot last forever) then they would be in deep crap, and could lose their jobs. They have no motive to lie and a risk that if they lie they could be punished.
Re: “Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state and McCain was born in Panama on a military installation. This isn’t a new trick dreamed up by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” as you would like to believe. It’s a long-time Democrat tactic dating all the way back to 1964 and libs are bothered now because it’s being applied to one of their own.”
This seems to be irrelevant to anything I said, I did not mention Goldwater or McCain. Both McCain and Obama posted their official birth documents. Both show that they were born in the USA. Good enough, I think. BOTH showed their official birth records. The COLB is the official birth record of Hawaii. (The Goldwater thing seems a bit silly. Quite a few presidents were born in territories. Abe Lincoln for one. It is unlikely that Goldwater was so old that at the time the land was part of Mexico.)
Re: “You’re the one that says it needs to be posted online.”
Actually, I said quite the reverse of this. I said that some right-wing blogs say that it should be posted on line. I disagreed, saying that if it is posted, that would merely draw people who claim that it is forged.
Re: “Let him show the original document to a court.”
On this we totally agree. If a court asks to see it, he should and I believe will show it. But I don’t see how he can show his document to a court unless a court asks to see it. So only if a court asks to see it can he show it. That’s the situation that we are in now.
Re: “ I’ll be content with a Federal court as long as the court wasn’t politically motivated.”
I’ll be content with any Federal or state court.
Re: “if Obama was going to post anything on his website he probably should have posted the original document to preclude this whole mess from happening.”
Come on! He asked Hawaii to send his birth certificate. They sent the COLB. He posted it. It is a legal document. It has the raised seal. We do not even know whether Hawaii would have sent the original document if he requested it. There are some blogs that say that Hawaii ONLY sends the COLB (to be sure the original document could be obtained by a court order, which gets us back to our agreement that the courts have to ask for it.)
But what is the bottom line? Obama’s parents would have had to have lied in 1961 to get a Hawaii birth records saying that he was born in Hawaii (and why should they lie?) Or, the officials in Hawaii have to be lying now (and why should they lie?) AND Obamas’ mother had to travel in the ninth month (and why should she?) AND the government of Kenya must be blocking access to its documents (and we have only Corsi’s word for this).
An official document from Hawaii saying that he was born in Hawaii seems a simple thing to believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home