Birth Certificate Vs. Certification Of Live Birth
July 17, 2009 · carl · Print This Article
We just did a story bringing to light how the U.S. Army revoked the orders of a Major scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan after he filed a lawsuit claiming that the deployment would be illegal due to the fact that Barack Obama has failed to produce a birth certificate, therefore he has not proven his eligibility to be Commander-In-Chief.
To say that we started a firestorm would be putting it mildly.
We had our fair share of rational responses, as well as the usual off-topic comments, accusations of being right-wing nuts, etc.
As well as a few that were too obscene to put into print.
It turns out that our theory that the document presented by Obama appears to be homemade has some support, in that it seems that there is a difference between a “Certification of Live Birth” as opposed to a “Certificate of Live Birth.”
Our friend Pamela at Atlas Shrugs also presents a compelling case that the document presented as proof that Obama is a natural-born American citizen is indeed a forgery.
And for you Obamanites who claim that there is no difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate, we, as well as the State of Hawaii, would have to disagree with you.
Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:
“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”
Everybody get that?
As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.
The child, on the other hand, could have been born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a back-alley in Budapest.
How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need before you will admit that there are legitimate reasons to demand answers on this issue?
Of course the fact that Obama may have been elected to our nation’s highest office in direct violation of the United States Constitution is not something that would greatly trouble a dedicated Kool-Aid drinker.
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
Haha ha…I knew you would be all over this one..I myself had started a firestorm on this subject as well.
January 21, 2009, Obama signed Executive Order 13489. This order was entered into the Federal Register on January 26, 2009.
What this executive order says, is that only the Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Council to the President, (Gregory Craig) are able to review presidential records requests and determine if they can be made public or not. (See Section 3)
In other words, you aren’t going to see any records or documents that Obama doesn’t want you to see….
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Obama’s first official act was to deny access to his records. Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no bona fides — no paper trail — nothing.
I have a list of all the documents that have been asked for and not received..licenses, college records…ect…
if this becomes a trend I don’t see how Obama and his three laws firms can keep these documents sealed. How do they allow this and continue to deny access to these papers?
But who know with this Administration we already know he and his czars don’t answer to the American people.
What we have here is a alleged president that would rather disband our soldiers than produce the legitimate documents required by our Constitution to prove eligibility to hold this office…well does this surprise anyone?
When are people going to wake up to the fact that they have elected a criminal to the highest office in the land and his intentions for this country are to his interest and his radical ideology of what this country should be.
Thank you Carl..your the best!!!
Erica
As always, thanks for the support.
And a special thanks for the heads-up regarding the Executive Order, which will be the subject of tomorrow’s article.
As far as being the best, I don’t know about that.
I think I’m in the top three though.
Thank You again.
So my question is: President Joe Biden?
That is the result you are pressing for here correct?
The result we are pressing for here is for the Constitution to be upheld.
@Salvaterra
That may be, but it would have been nice if those pressing now would also demand the previous administration’s violations of the Constitution be immediately investigated and prosecuted. I believe the Constitutional requirements have been upheld. You do not. Perfectly acceptable. But to selectively decide this part of the Constitution must be upheld at all costs while ignoring the gross violations previously committed makes your principles seem suspiciously selective.
@JustMe
I know you and many other liberals are dying to bring George Bush back into this subject. The fact that you are not being specific only shows that you want to turn this into a big debate about old issues that do not involve the problems of Obama that are going on right now. It isn’t going to work on me. You can see how long this blog has been around by visiting our archives.
Re: “[§338-17.8]
That was passed in 1982, more than twenty years after Obama’s birth. When Obama was born Hawaii could not file a foreign birth certificate in a Hawaii birth certificate file. There is an original birth certificate (not a late birth certificate or a certificate of Hawaiian birth) in the file. Therefore the original document in the file is from Hawaii.
Then why doesn’t Obama post the original? Because Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
And that means that unless Obama has a copy of the original, saved by his family from the time of birth and not lost by him (and many of us do lose our birth certificates), the only thing that he can show is the document that Hawaii sent him, and Hawaii sends out only the short-form certification. This is, however, the legal birth certificate of Hawaii, accepted by all the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL, I checked) and it is accepted as proof of birth in the United States by the US State Department for issuing passports.
So, yet another false alarm.
Just like all the others.
[...] Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth. [...]
[...] Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Look at your own Birth Certificate you will see the differences. http://freedomedium.com/2009/07/birt…of-live-birth/ Birth Certificate Vs. Certification Of Live Birth July 17, 2009
I’m all for both further inquiry into the status of the Leper Messiah AND inquiries into the actions of the Bush administration. Happy to see the Federal Reserve audited, too.
Mark
There are numerous questions we all would like to see answered, the trouble is getting enough people to start asking them.
In regards to smrstrauss on 338-17.8 Yes it was passed in 1982. Why then does it say territory or state of Hawaii? Hawaii was not a territory in 1982. It was a state. Just curious.
Jay,
Because the first words are “Upon application of an adult”. There’s no time limit on how long after the birth you can apply.
However, the birth certificate will still state the actual place of birth, and will state the actual Date Filed. Since Obama’s CoLB states the record of birth was filed in 1961, this statute clearly does not apply in his case.
And there is a difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth, but it’s not what these bozos think it is. A Certificate of Live Birth is a source document. A Certification of Live Birth is an abstract of the information on the Certificate, and certifies that that information comes from the Certificate filed with the state.
The state doesn’t store a Certification as a source document. It issues it when someone requests a copy of their birth certificate, based on the Certificate they do have stored.
Just curious, would you guys be going crazy over John McCain if he was president? Because, guess what? He wasn’t born in the US. This whole thing is ridiculous. Sorry your guy didn’t win.
Jeff
Guess what?
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
McCain not being born in the U.S. is not a factor because his father was on active duty in the military at the time.
So before you start whining that you are sorry our guy didn’t win, try and get your facts straight next time.
Visit your local library, they have these wonderful things called books.
>McCain not being born in the U.S. is not a factor because his father >was on active duty in the military at the time.
Oh, so it says in the Constitution that if your father is in the active military, it means your a Natural Born Citizen? Hey, it’s not like I would complain or anything, but if you guys want to be sticklers, McCain was not eligible under your strict guidelines.
So, maybe try to check your facts
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2008/02/is-john-mccain.html
Jeff
Let’s clear up a few minor details.
One, we were talking about Obama, not McCain.
Two, it’s not our strict guidelines, it is the CONSTITUTION’s strict giudelines.
Three, it is common knowledge (don’t take our word for it, write to your Congressman and ask him) that children that are born outside of the U.S. when one or both parents are on active duty military service are considered to be natural born U.S. citizens.
I have a nephew with big political ambitions who was born in Japan when his father was in the Air Force, my brother-in-law did make this inquiry of his Congressman and was assured that, under federal law, the boy would be eligible to run for President.
Four, to be considered a “natural born citizen” both of your parents have to be U.S. citizens.
Obama has never proven that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Both of Mccain’s parents were, that pretty much puts and end to that.
Last of all, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, long before Jimmy Carter relinquished American control of the canal.
Earlier in the nineteenth century, Congress enacted a law that stated that anyone born in the Republic of Panama or the Canal Zone after 1904 were automatically considered natural born U.S. citizens.
Hope this clears thing up for you.
>Three, it is common knowledge (don’t take our word for it, write >to your Congressman and ask him) that children that are born >outside of the U.S. when one or both parents are on active duty >military service are considered to be natural born U.S. citizens.
this is not a fact. You’re confusing US Citizen with “Natural Born” citizen.
>I have a nephew with big political ambitions who was born in >Japan when his father was in the Air Force, my brother-in-law >did make this inquiry of his Congressman and was assured >that, under federal law, the boy would be eligible to run for >President.
If you made the inquiry, than you must have not known right? Your Congressman was misinformed. This is not a fact. Although, your nephew doesn’t have anything to worry about, because nobody adheres to such strict definitions. But, it has never been clarified, you can look it up yourself.
>Four, to be considered a “natural born citizen” both of your >parents have to be U.S. citizens.
Absolutely, positively NOT a fact. This is a total fabrication actually. Not sure where you got this one from.
>Last of all, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, >long before Jimmy Carter relinquished American control of the >canal.
Territory does not equal “State” (ie NOT United States). The legality of natural born status in Panama was actually clarified by the Pentagon.
>Earlier in the nineteenth century, Congress enacted a law that >stated that anyone born in the Republic of Panama or the Canal >Zone after 1904 were automatically considered natural born U.S. >citizens.
Naturalized (ie US citizen) Not “Natural Born.” Natural Born has never been defined beyond being born within the US states. Even if Obama was born in Kenya (he wasn’t, he was born in Hawaii), he is a “naturalized” citizen as well.
Hope this clears things up for you.
carl,
The Constitution has “strict guidelines” about what “natural born citizen” means?
Aren’t you contradicting yourself there? First, “one or both”, then “both” only.
“Earlier in the nineteenth century”, i.e. 1800s, and “after 1904″, don’t compute.
Jeff,
There are only two types of U.S. citizen: Natural born, native-born, citizen-at-birth (different names for the same thing), and naturalized.
Carl- One more thing.
I don’t think “common knowledge” should really be considered relevant in this discussion if you’re going to really be sticklers about everything. It is also “common knowledge” that Obama was born in Hawaii and that because he has provided his Certification of Birth, there exists a source Birth Certificate showing that he was born there too. Sure, “common knowledge” is good enough for me, but I was under the assumption that you guys didn’t think this was good enough right?
@Jeff and Twitchy
Guys, the fact remains we can stay here till hell freezes over, I’m not going to change your mind, and you aren’t going to change mine.
I don’t see how John McCain became a topic of this discussion anyway. and I really don’t care.
And I have better things to do than keep going over the same thing over and over again.
I am not going to spend the rest of my life on this one topic, I am not the “Birther” you think I am.
And contrary to what you may think, although our political ideologies differ, I truly would not want to see Obama removed from office under that circumstance, the chaos that would result is too horrible to imagine.
If it makes you feel any better, you can say NAH NAH, we made him give up.
I have moved on to the health care reform bill, the slide in Obama’s approval ratings, the “cash for clunkers” program, and a host of other issues which have much more significance to the future of this country.
So call it whatever you want, but I don’t have the time to keep arguing back and forth on this, if you want to continue to do so, that’s up to you, but maybe you should consider some of the other problems facing America.
I
HaHa – of course, even if Obama’s parents had done this, your thesis is belied bt the fact that his Certification of Live Birth states that he was born in HONOLULU.
Also, this particular statute was adopted AFTER he was born.
thats not what it says. it says that you have to prove that the parents lived in hawaii for a year before the kid was born in order to get a birth certificate.
this is why obama cant get one. because his parents didnt live there for a year…
“As we discussed last week, Mr. Obama loves that because it makes his opposition look irrational. Why would he ever release his birth certificate when those demanding it look unhinged?…Every crazy theory, like the birth certificate deal, actually helps the president by marginalizing his most bitter opponents.”
Bill O’Reilly
Common clearly made an exception for ambassadors and military families.
————————-
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.