Speaking tonight before a meeting of the Tipton County Tennessee Republicans at Gateway Baptist Church, conservative author Michael Patrick Leahy will outline his argument that Barack Obama has not proven he is a natural born citizen, and therefore is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
“The Constitution is quite clear on this matter,” according to Leahy. “Article II, Section I of the Constitution states unequivocally that only a natural born citizen, older than thirty-five, who has resided in the United States for at least fourteen years is eligible for the Office of the Presidency. The courts have decided in the past that to be considered natural born, a candidate must have been born either in the United States or on an American military base outside the United States to parents who are American citizens. Any candidate born outside the United States, not on an American military base to American citizen parents is not natural born. For the first time in American political history, serious questions have been raised about the birth location of the nominee from a major party. In such instances, the burden of proof lies with the candidate. And clearly, Senator Obama has not met that burden of proof. Therefore, he is not eligible for the Office of the Presidency.”
The three types of proof offered by Obama to date are insufficient to establish that he is a natural born citizen. The proof offered includes:
(1) A digital image of the front of a State of Hawaii certified copy of Certificate of Live Birth posted on the “Fight the Smears” website in June, 2008.
(2) A physical inspection of the purported State of Hawaii certified copy of Certificate of Live Birth made in August, 2008 at Obama offices in Chicago by researchers from the Annenberg Political Fact Check organization, a unit of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
(3) A digital image of an August 13, 1961 “notice of birth” in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper.
None of the three pieces of evidence identified above have been verified by Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Registrar and Chief of the Vital Records Office for the State of Hawaii, as authentic. Even if the certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth is determined to be an authentic document, it does not mean it verifies Obama was born in Hawaii. “That purported certified copy does not have the signature of Dr. Alvin Onaka on the back. It merely has the stamp of his signature. If it was generated by the State of Hawaii, it was generated by a clerk, who simply typed a certificate number into a computer data base, which contains abstract information supposedly generated at some time by viewing the long form vault copy Certificate of Live Birth submitted to the Department of Health by either the hospital of his birth, or at some time subsequent to his birth by his parents or grandparents. And Dr. Onaka himself has acknowledged in a 2005 speech that the integrity of birth certificate databases needs to be improved. It is within the range of the possible that the Hawaii birth certificate data base has been hacked into and compromised.”
“You can look at this evidence offered to date and a reasonable person might conclude it is more likely than not that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 as he claims. Such a conclusion, however, does not meet the Constitutional requirement of absolute certainty. The Constitution does not say a person who more likely than not is a natural born citizen is eligible for the Office of the President. The Constitution says a person must be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the Office of the President.”
Leahy went on to echo the request of the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check organization that conducted the physical inspection of the purported certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth in the possession of the Obama campaign. “I agree with Brooks Jackson, Director of the Annenberg Political Fact Check organization, who I interviewed both yesterday and today,” Leahy said. “Here is a direct quote from Mr. Jackson, which he gave me this morning:”
"We asked the Obama campaign to consider asking Hawaii officials to release copies of his birth certificate to reporters, or at least to confirm publicly that the birth certificate he has produced is an official document. That way there could be absolutely no question of its authenticity. But they didn't think that was necessary."
“I am simply asking the Obama campaign to do as Mr. Jackson asks them. In my opinion, only the production of the long form vault copy of Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii and the verification of the authenticity of this document as it relates to Obama’s birth in Hawaii will establish that he is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible for the Office of the Presidency,” Leahy said. “I have already demonstrated in my book, What Does Barack Obama Believe?, that Senator Obama has the facts of his early life wrong. For over fifteen years he has been incorrectly claiming that his father left his mother when he was two years old. The facts are clear that his mother left his father, moving to Seattle from Honolulu, when he was seven months old. It’s possible that Senator Obama is as inaccurate in his statements about where he was born as he has been about when his parents separated, and the circumstances under which they separated.”
Click here for rest of press release.
13 comments:
In order to show that Obama was not born in Hawaii, you have to show two things. First that the document discussed at this site is completely wrong:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
And second, and here's the tough part, that Obama was born in Kenya as you claim.
In order to show that he was born in Kenya, you need to show some kind of Kenyan document, such as a Kenyan birth certificate or a record from the Kenyan government that Obama's mother was visiting Kenya at the time.
I have also checked the sites of Hawaii's newspapers, which accept the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. And I've done a web search on Kenyan news, and I haven't found any newspapers, news agencies or other accounts in which any Kenyan official claimed that Obama was born IN Kenya. They are naturally proud that he was born of a Kenyan father, but they make no claims that Obama was born there.
Dear smrsstrauss:
Thank you very much for your comments.
First, I do not claim that Obama was born in Kenya. I do not know where he was born. The burden of proof lies with Obama to prove that he is in fact natural born. He has not met that burden.
Second, I am very familiar with the Factcheck article you reference, in which two young researchers went to the Obama campaign offices in Chicago and inspected the document that is purported to be a certified copy from the State of Hawaii of Obama's certificate of live birth.
With regards to that document:
(1) The man whose signature STAMP appears on the back of that document, Hawaii State Registrar Dr. Alvin Onaka, refuses to verify that this document is authentic. This is proper on his part, as he can only do so if authorized by Obama, who has offered no such authorization.
(2) You should read the full press release on this issue, found at http://www.michaelpatrickleahy.com/obamapressrelease.pdf . After you've done that, come back please and comment again.
In a nutshell, the document these young researchers (neither of whom are qualified to verify the authenticity of legal documents) saw and photographed, even if valid, is a copy generated by a clerk in the State Department of Health from a birth certificate data base that Dr. Onaka himself acknowledged in 2005 can be compromised.
Only viewing the original long form vault copy of the birth certificate will confirm at the level of certainty necessary that Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed.
It would take half an hour for him to authorize viewing of this document.
Why doesn't he do it ?
I believe it is because of one of the following three reasons:
1. It doesn't exist.
2. It is not an original document created by a Hawaii hospital at his birth, but is a document submitted subsequently by his parents or grandparents that does not show his birth as in a Hawaii hospital
3. It is an original document created by a Hawaii hospital that contains embarassing information
If the original long form vault copy of his birth certificate can clear this question all up, why doesn't Senator Obama release it today ?
http://www.michaelpatrickleahy.com/obamapressrelease.pdf
Please tell me that the press will cover your talk!
I have followed this story extensively. All Obama has to do is produce the vault copy birth certificate. It seems as this escalates, he would if he could.
All the best to you!
Re: The burden of proof lies with Obama to prove that he is in fact natural born. He has not met that burden.
I disagree with you entirely and fundamentally. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that he is not a citizen. Did any of our 43 presidents EVER have to prove that he was born in the USA?
If a presidential candidate said he was born in the USA, but his church had burned down and the official government records were lost in the Louisiana floods, would that mean that he was NOT eligible to be president?
So, only if there is a valid reason for questioning that he is a natural born US citizen is there any need to ask for proof.
Well, as you admit, there's no good evidence that he was born in Kenya. We know that his mother lived in Hawaii. He says he was born in Hawaii. He produces a certificate of live birth that shows he was born in Hawaii. Not only factCheck but PoliFact checked the document and concluded it was valid.
It has been posted on Obama's site for months and months and no one from the government of Hawaii has said that it was improper or looked improper.
Are you really sure that there is "an original long-form vault copy?" As I said, these things do get lost. Often governments do not retain old documents in paper form for decades.
In any case, Hawaii told PoliFact that the document that is on Obama's site is perfectly valid.
The same holds for the records from the hospital. It may have been lost or thrown away years ago.
Ask yourself the source of the claims that Obama was not born in the USA. Do they come from impartial observers? Do they come from the press? No, they come from Obama opponents. No wonder he does want to give them 15 minutes of additional fame by releasing any more documents. The document he released is good enough.
It is impossible that his refusal to release documents will affect the election at this point. No court will stop the election because they cannot find another document.
In the almost impossibly low chance that there were a court hearing on the matter after the election and in the extremely unlikely case that the court were to find that Obama was not born in the USA (and remember, the court would have to have evidence both that the documents were not valid AND that there was positive evidence he was born somewhere out of the USA0, then guess what, McCain would not win. Joe Biden would.
Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Obama Ineligible for the
Presidency":
Tsmrstrauss, there is a big difference between a short-form birth
certificate[1] and a long-form birth certificate.[2] The short form
released by Obama is a very brief 2007 document.[3][4] An example of a
long form birth certificate from Hawaii is obviously older and much
more detailed.[5]
John McCain has already relesed his long-form birth certificate.[6] Why
won’t Barack Obama?
There is huge confusion surrounding Obama’s infancy. According to David
Maraniss of the Washington Post,[7] his mother moved with him to
Washington State, after his father left them to begin studies at
Harvard. But other sources say she left him before he began studies at
Harvard, when he was barely a month old. See Jonathan Martin writing in
the Seattle Times,[8] and see Rick Montgomery writing for the McClatchy
Newspapers[9] and see Rick Anderson writing in the Seattle Weekly.[10]
This raises lots of questions, and the long-form birth certificate
would help answer them.
Is Obama probably a natural born citizen? Yes. But why won't he go
ahead and prove it?
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate#Short_forms
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate#Long_forms
[3]http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
[4]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
[5]http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
[6]http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145
[7]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082301620_pf.html
[8]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004334057_obama08m.html
[9]http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun/01/barack_obamas_mother_more_just_kansas_girl/?print
[10]http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-10-22/news/may-the-best-mom-win/
Moderate comments for this blog:
http://www.blogger.com/moderate-comment.g?blogID=36623192
Posted by Andrew to Michael Patrick Leahy at 6:07 PM
This just in:
State declares Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is genuine
By Associated Press
6:43 PM EDT, October 31, 2008
HONOLULU (AP) _ State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
===
(and this slightly different account:)
Friday, October 31, 2008 - 11:51 AM HAST (That means Hawaii/Aleutian Standard Time)
Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate confirmed
Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.
Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.
End quote:
These two versions of the same report seem clear enough. The birth certificate is on file in Hawaii and it is valid.
However, the opponents of Obama simply will not give up. I have seen one Web comment that went along these lines: "It could have been a valid Kenyan birth certificate on file in Hawaii that the Hawaii official was talking about."
Laughable, of course, why would a Kenyan birth certificate be filed in Hawaii?
Oh, and as to the claim that Obama's grandmother said that she had been present at his birth in Kenya. Well, that all stems from Corsi and Philip Berg, who claim to have an audio tape of her saying that. But Berg and Corsi have never played that tape for anyone. And they have not shown any other evidence, such as Kenyan documents, either.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
So, unless you (meaning the side that thinks Obama is not a natural born citizen) can PROVE that Obama was born in Kenya, this is an absurd claim.
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”
Smrstraus:
You made the claim concerning the Virginia court case in a comment on my later blogpost on the topic.
As I responded to you there:
I am pretty sure the Virginia Court Case you cite from Free Republic is a bogus report. Note that there is no citation of the Plaintiff or Defendant.
I would go back and check it out.
By the way, no response yet (2 days after the election) to my 13 unanswered questions about her October 31 statement on Barack Obama's birth certificate from Dr. Chiyome Fukino of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii.
Re the Virginia case. You may be right. There is no way of knowing. It certainly seems authentic due to the details and the wording.
We know for sure that there was a Virginia case and that it was ruled on and that it decided in Obama’s favor. How do we know that? Because he was allowed to be on the ballot in Virginia.
You continue to quibble about the documents when you have absolutely no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.
As you said before: “First, I do not claim that Obama was born in Kenya. I do not know where he was born. The burden of proof lies with Obama to prove that he is in fact natural born. He has not met that burden.”
As I responded to you, the burden is not on him but on the people who allege that he was not born in Hawaii, and they have no evidence. Moreover, it would be so easy to get evidence. All that they would have do to is to prove that Obama’s mother was in Kenya or anywhere else than in the USA at the time of his birth.
I’m really not sure what your 13 questions were, but unless there is evidence that Obama was born somewhere else than in Hawaii, what do they matter?
If you are now relying on the complicated issues of dual nationality and loss of citizenship, first they do not apply. The constitution says nothing about dual nationality. So a dual national can be president so long as he or she were born in the USA. Second, you cannot lose your US citizenship due to the actions of your parents, so Obama was and remains a citizen.
While the report of the Virginia case may not be authentic, and as I say it seems authentic but there is no way to know, I am pretty sure that what it concluded is right, that the certification of live birth is adequate proof that a birth certificate from Hawaii really exists. And it concludes that the certification also has a line on it which refers to place of birth, which was entered as Hawaii, and that is true as well.
If any court had actually asked for Obama’s vault birth certificate, then he could have produced it, since we know that the Certification proves the existence of a birth certificate in the files. But he hasn’t produced one, mainly because he wasn’t asked to produce one by a court.
The requests by bloggers, some of whom think he was born in Kenya, that he produce his vault birth certificate is not an urgent reason to do so.
However, IF the Supreme Court asks for his birth certificate (unlikely because the certification is good enough) and IF he does not produce it, then we do have an issue. But this is extremely, extremely unlikely.
Cheers
smrstrauss,
A very nice comment here on November 7 concerning the issue of the Barack Obama birth certificate.
Let me take exception to one statement you made, and agree with another statement you made.
Statement 1: I Disagree
"We know for sure that there was a Virginia case and that it was ruled on and that it decided in Obama’s favor. How do we know that? Because he was allowed to be on the ballot in Virginia."
Yes, there was a suit filed in a state court in Richmond, Virginia around October 24, 2008 by a private individual voter challenging Obama's natural born status, but I've seen no evidence that suit has been decided one way or the other. Obama's presence on the Virginia ballot subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit is not related to whether this case was decided, or how the court ruled. Had the court ruled in favor of the challenge, it would have been immediately appealed, and would have had no impact on the ballot. The presence on the ballot of a candidate is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide, and those decisions are made months before the actual election.
Statement Two: I agree
"However, IF the Supreme Court asks for his birth certificate (unlikely because the certification is good enough) and IF he does not produce it, then we do have an issue. But this is extremely, extremely unlikely."
Re: “I've seen no evidence that suit has been decided one way or the other.”
For you to disbelieve the blog that I am quoting regarding the Virginia case, you would have to believe that someone simply made up this statement:
“The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I think that it is possible but highly unlikely that someone would (why would they?) or even could (written too much like a judge) make up that statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts
Still, as you say, there's no way of knowing.
But what does this have to do with the fundamental situation: Is there evidence that Obama was born in Kenya? No. Is there evidence that he was born in Hawaii? Yes.
Okay, you can quibble on the last part. Maybe you think that the COLB is not proof. But you cannot be certain that he was born somewhere other than in Hawaii either -- not until you produce evidence of that. And you cannot be certain that the Supreme Court might not accept the COLB either.
Without evidence that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, why should the Supreme Court act?
Is there any statement by Hawaii that it ever actually issued that (worthless) "Certification of Live Birth" document, with that form/registration #, pictured on Obugabe's website? Like everything else about his past, I suspect it is made up out of whole cloth.
Post a Comment