Now just how are we gonna get to the bottom of BO's BC when he will never release it? :-)

Not to mention the fact that if it were in fact that case that Obama had a fake birth certificate, the public would never have known about it because the media would protect their messiah at all costs. By contrast, if it were really the case that Trig wasn't Palin's baby, that would have been the front-page news for the Obamedia for month (surely that would have been a better story than how much Palin spent on her clothing).

Jerry F,

This is not snark. What documentation has the Obama camp faked?

Orin, you are clearly part of the conspiracy to silence Jerry F's valiant efforts to expose the truth about the million-person media conspiracy.

If only he could convince somebody, anybody in the media to speak up!

Obama's birth was announced in the local Hawaiii newspaper at the time: While you can fake a birth certificate, I have no idea how you can fake 47 year old birth announcements in a widely distributed paper.

I'm not intending to make any claims about where Obama was born but the fact that his birth was announced in a certain paper doesn't mean anything unless it was specifically mentioned as happening at a specific hospital.

My local paper runs birth announcements all the time where the birth happened out of town to a local couple or where the couple is not local but has proud relatives living here.

If Obama isn't a natural born citizen then he should be. Jus soli is silly and we should switch to using jus sanguinis exclusively, with appropriate provisions for the offspring of young mothers like Stanley Dunham.

On the internet, extraordinary claims require less proof than is commonly accepted at your local courthouse.

Jay, why do you say jus soli is "silly"? For that matter, what positives does jus sanguinis have to outweigh being based on something irrelevant to the person in question (and really, to the world at large) - namely, the status of some other person at a point in the past. True, it's kind of silly that jus soli grants citizenship to minors - although jus sanguinis can have the same flaw, and it's not necessarily that the birth citizenship adhere prior to the age of majority, but giving credence to the dead hand of the past the way jus sanguinis does strikes me as far worse than any problem jus soli could have.

I would guess that the reason Obama has not produced the original is that it is lost. Or, is it possible that the original has some medical information that he would consider embarrassing to his mother's memory? Either way, does anyone really think the State of Hawaii is part of this conspiracy? How else to reconcile belief that he was not born in Hawaii with the fact that the state has publicly confirmed that he was born in Hawaii?

Here's a question one of you lawyer times might be able to answer for me.

Any person born on US soil is considered a citizen, as long as they're not born to foreign diplomats. Furthermore, all US citizens have to file tax returns.

So if a (for example) Bolivian woman gave birth to a son while on holiday in the US, and then returned home a few days later with her child, would that child be required to file US tax returns? If he decided to visit the US as a tourist 40 years later, could he be arrested and charged with tax evasion? What about if he decided, at age 40, to reside here, as is his birthright? Would he have to perform retroactive filing and payment, or would he get to start from scratch with the IRS from his date of return?

Orin, I laughed, good post.

Personally, I think these rumors stand not because of the internet but because of the "give not an inch" culture that arose during the campaign. For instance, we heard for months that anyone who said Obama's middle name is Hussein was a lying racist for saying so. I think that was even on fightthesmears for a while---except of course that is his middle name.

When your opponent is refusing to even acknowledge when you're right, why would trust him on anything?

Isn't the internet some of the problem with the birth certificate? Had it been given to, say, Bill O'Reilly and a few experts for examination, this entire thing would be behind us. Then a political opponent and his experts could examine the hard copy, determine that it's real, and announce that news to their audience. Since it's published on the internet, though, everyone wonders if it's real.

I suspect that when we get to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate story

When? I'm pretty sure we reached bottom on that story months ago.

I suspect that when we get to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate story, we will learn that Obama's true mother is Bristol Palin.

It's too bad that the Volokh Conspiracy is such a dignified, scholarly blog, I don't feel comfortable posting something like:

WIN! I award Orin +1 Intertubes!

but I wish that I could.

theo and einhverfr,

It doesn't matter. Disclaimers by persons presumably sympathetic to the conspiracy theorists debunk nothing. They just broaden the conspiracy to include the lying traitors. Essentially that's the response I've gotten when I've told Truthers on the left* that Noam Chomsky considers the 9/11 conspiracies nonsense.

(*Yes, Truthers span the left-right divide, proving that bi-partisanship can work with the proper inspirational message. Kumbaya!)

My personal theory is that Popular Mechanics is hiding Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

My personal theory is that Popular Mechanics is hiding Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

popular mechanics? that's impossible. they are owned by the neocons. their articles debunking the 911 truthers is proof enough of that

whit,

popular mechanics? that's impossible. they are owned by the neocons. their articles debunking the 911 truthers is proof enough of that

What a naif. You think that by applying so-called "logic" to so-called "facts" you're going to get a so-called "answer?" Think bigger. When things don't add up, don't waste your time looking for mistakes. That's exactly what they want you to do. Just keep adding.

And remember the conspiracy's always bigger than you think it is. Never smaller.

Jerry F:

I agree that if there was validity to the Obama-is-not-a-citizen view, it would probably have been endorsed by Hannity, Limbaugh and NR, which is why I don't think that there is much validity to that view.

Well, some commenters on Hannity's blog believe it. I'm sure Orin will confirm from his own blogging experience that that's pretty much conclusive proof Hannity believes it too.

You are missing the obvious: there is no birth certificate for Barack Obama. He is not human. Not only was he not born in the United States, he was not even born on Earth.

It's so nice to see the parallel lunacy pointed out... each side thinks the other is crazy for believing something so preposterous, but thinks his own case is totally different. Sullivan degrades himself with this business; I tend to think that he wouldn't want to classify himself with the WSJ Law Blog nutcases commenters.

Well, I went to an anagram generator and put in 'barack hussein obama' and got upwards of 50,000 possibles. But the 666th (!!) is the one that is of supreme interest to the future of our Republic:

A Cabanas Bike Rho Mus

1. We know the cabana was invented in Cuba.
2. 'bike' spelled backwards in 'ekib' and is Prof. Kerr's Illuminati name.
3. rho is the 17th letter of the Greek alphabet; 17 is the seventh prime number; Mose Allison's Seventh Son contains the lyric "I'm the One".
4. Mus needs no explanation.

Obama was born of Cuban parents in some Muslim country. Prof. Kerr knows this to be true.

Person:

It's not intransigence to ignore a non-issue that nobody but the lunatic fringe thinks has even a shred of validity. If you want irrefutable proof that "releasing the birth certificate" would not make anything go away, look to the comments of bromophile and einhverfr:

Had it been given to, say, Bill O'Reilly and a few experts for examination, this entire thing would be behind us.

You can't just give the original to political enemies. Instead what would need to happen would be a certified copy with chain of custody would need to be given to an independent panel (or at least a trusted panel).

It's easy to see where it goes from there. Members of the panel aren't truly "independent.": They have ties to a democratic fundraiser, or lived in Tim McVeigh's neiborhood, or watched a Jane Fonda movie, etc.

Any attempt to end the "controversy" simply creates more opportunities for further "controversy."

The problem is that a good chunk of the public, usually the most well read, knows that the media will conspire to hide bad things about presidental hopefuls they like.

Kennedy screwed anything wearing a skirt? The press ran extra 'great marriage with Jackie' stories to cover.

Clinton screwed anything in a skirt, whether the girl wanted to or not? The press covered by running 'power couple' stories until a federal ind pro uncovered a fairly serious justice related story and then they were shocked--shocked--at what was going on.

FDR couldn't stand up? The press spent years shooting photos and newsreels to look like he was a-ok.

It is worth pointing out that the era in which most people did not get their news from a biased medium of their choice was quite short. Before WWII, multiple, competing newspapers in most cities each spouted their own political views and advocated them with yellow journalism. Choosing which to read was substantially similar to choosing which blogs to read and which news channel to watch. The Chicago Tribune acted as Fox News to a wide area of the Midwest, which voted together, and the suspicions they held of the East Coast Elites make Sarah Palin look like John Kerry.

The internet has allowed us to return to those days.

Remember the Maine!

Snaphappy:

True, it's hard to keep a good conspiracy theory down; but not doing something as basic and cheap as releasing a birth certificate to the general public, instead of expensively going to court, can only fuel speculation.

Besides, a court battle, even if won by Obama, won't convince the diehard believers either.

Sigh.

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," [Hawaii Department of Health] Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

Nothing will ever satisfy the tin foil hat wearing nutters. Of course I'm narrow-minded.

Arkady, it doesn't matter what the state says, they're part of the conspiracy.

OR

AHA! but they didn't actually say WHAT the certificate says, did they! That's because it says "Born in Kenya", which is why Hawaii has it and not Kenya!

True, it's hard to keep a good conspiracy theory down; but not doing something as basic and cheap as releasing a birth certificate to the general public, instead of expensively going to court, can only fuel speculation.

Obama is smart as heck, or has a really smart inner circle. By playing hide the paper on a non-story he keeps it going until it dies next year.

Meanwhile, there is no time or effort to report the actual issue, which is that all his friends and mentors are terrorists, murderers, and organized crime figures.

With all the issues Clinton had on an investment, what fun could an actual active media have with "Mr President, how did you come to own your home?"

Obama doesn't respond to these conspiracy theories because, politically, it helps him to have a bunch of crazy people claiming that he wasn't really born in Hawaii.

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," [Hawaii Department of Health] Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.



Nothing will ever satisfy the tin foil hat wearing nutters. Of course I'm narrow-minded.

Well, since you admit you are narrow-minded...:)

Can you please describe to us how the above statement would be any different for a Certificate of Live Birth registered for a foreign born child? Or for a Certificate of Delayed Birth? Both of which are perfetly valid Certificates under Hawaiian law.

Hawaii has some unusual birth registration laws, which happen to exist whether you do or don't believe them to exist. The reason why you are narrow-minded is that I at least have stated what would satisfy me, the original, long form Certificate of Birth.

An ambigous statement, that has no real meaning doesn't satisfy the issue.

So not only Obama, but also Obama? I had no idea the conspiracy ran so deep.

Typo's do not change the facts and issues being dealt with.

In a bygone day, some hand-wringer probably said, "we live in a time that, because of the libraries, all points of view can live forever."

I have a question which perhaps some lawyer here might shed some light on:

I have been told (by several adoptive parents of my acquaintence, not family law practitioners) that when a child is adopted his/her original birth certificate is erased from government records and a new, "legal fiction", document is created. For example, a couple I knew took in a pregnant teenager when the teenager's parents threw her out of the house, then adopted the girl. The 33-yr-old mother and 17-yr-old daughter got a good chuckle out of the fact that according to the daughter's new legal birth certificate, her mother had been 16 when she was born. The story was that there was no indication that the birth certificate was reporting a legal fiction, no distinction between childbirth and adoption.

So, anyway, is there anyone here with the requisite family-law knowledge that can tell us what the story would be if Soetero legally adopted Barry when he married Barry's mother? If the adoption was formal and legal and went through Hawaiian courts in 1967, would there exist an official Hawaiian birth certificate of the guy we just elected president which has Barack Hussein Obama on it as the father? Which has Barack Hussein Obama on it as the name of the person who was born?

I go by a nickname, and I changed my last name when I married (like a gazillion other adult women), so I obviously can't produce a birth certificate with my current name on it. I can (and occasionally have had to) produce proof of citizenship through multiple documents (a key one being the passport which shows my maiden name and then is amended to show my married name.) Anyone who has dealt with real-life bureacratic requirements knows of perfectly legitimate reasons why the requisite records might not exist that would prove something or other, or why the records would get kind of convoluted.

Obama's history is a bit sketchy (odd for someone who already has two autobiographies!) but a couple of things stand out: when Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia his mother and stepfather separated and his stepfather took a second wife. Under Indonesian law, if Obama was legally adopted, then Lolo Soetero had sole and complete custody over both Barack and his sister Maya, and he could have prevented Barack from having any contact with his mother and/or her family. There is no evidence that Soetero in any way objected to or tried to interfere with Barack returning to Hawaii to live with the Dunhams, but if he had, then legally things would have gotten pretty dicey.

There has been a certain speculation that Obama returned to Hawaii in 1972 and simply resumed his pre-Soetero identity without taking any legal action to undo any adoption. That he used his original 1961 birth certificate (he describes looking at it in his autobiography) to register for school, apply for a social security number, get his first drivers license, passport, etc. This would, of course, be fraud -- if the original 1961 birth certificate had been nullified by a 1967 adoption, then it would be identity theft and fraud to start using it again in 1972 without taking legal measures to reverse the adoption and return to the previous identity. But everyone may have seen attempting to nullify the adoption as being needlessly provocative. After all, Lolo was being such a good sport about letting Barack return to Hawaii and keeping a cordial relationship with his senior wife and daughter. As we all have experienced, once you have official identification, you basically "bootstrap" your identity from that. Michelle Obama recently made some rather cryptic remarks that the people bringing up the birth certificate question are persecuting her husband for being adopted.

So, anyway, my whole interest in the question is that I find it an intriguing mystery: why would Obama spend north of a million dollars on legal fees resisting the moves to force him to produce his official birth certificate when it would be so simple and cheap for him to do so? So one thing that I speculate is that his birth certificate says that his name is Barry Soetero and that his father is Lolo Soetero. Can anyone with knowledge of family-law procedures tell us that's what Obama's birth certificate would say if my speculation about a 1967 adoption is true? OK I'm still perplexed -- would it really be worth all that money to hide the fact that Soetero adopted him? What else could be there? I mean other than the nutcase theory that the birth certificate says he was born outside the US (I'm sorry, I simply cannot believe that Obama would provoke a constitutional crisis by running for president if he knew that he was ineligible.)

(I'm sorry, I simply cannot believe that Obama would provoke a constitutional crisis by running for president if he knew that he was ineligible.)

Why do you believe that? I mean, that has to be about the most nonsensical thing I've heard said about this whole affair, on either side? If he were not born in the USA, why exactly would he refrain from running for president, since it appears that it's so easy to get away with? If, as it appears, a candidate, even a winning candidate, does not have to present any sort of proof of eligibility to anyone, ever, how can a constitutional crisis be provoked?

Seriously, suppose Schwartzenegger were simply to brazenly announce his candidacy for the presidency, what could stop him? Or what could stop some 30-year-old whom nobody knows from simply claiming to be 35, if he never has to prove it?

As for Obama's specific case, I find it very difficult to believe that he was not born in Hawaii, but the fact is that he has not presented any evidence for it. The copy of the extract that he posted on the web shows signs of manipulation, and the only people who claim to have seen the original are his friends at the Annenberg Political Fact Check. I don't see why anyone should feel obliged to take their word for it, any more than we need to take the word of the three carefully chosen journalists to whom Kerry claims to have released his military records.

The Hawaiian officials' recent announcement is also insufficient. First, if I were in a legal dispute with any one of you, and instead of presenting a document I got some Hawaiian state official to say that the document exists, you would not accept it, and you'd wonder why I didn't just release the document, or better still authorise you to get a copy direct from the state. Second, their announcement seems curiously worded - they confirm that a birth certificate exists, but not what's on it. As scattergood asks, how is that any sort of proof of his birth in Hawaii, since we know that state does hold birth certificates for at least some people not born there?

Since it shows the original birth parents, is not the logical conclusion that he was never adopted, as far as Hawaii is concerned, or if he was, it was nullified in some manner acceptable to Hawaii.
Johnny Canuck

I did not think we were dealing with "logical conclusions" here. I thought we were dealing with the law. Is the issuance of a certification of live birth with his birth parents' names conclusive legal evidence he was never adopted? Or is the certification simply the end result of his improperly using old (superceded) documentation (his '61 certificate of birth) for decades?

some dude: If the issue is, was he born in Hawaii, yes, Certification is conclusive evidence. says nothing about adoption in some other jurisdiction, but I think eliminates the theory that not producing the original birth certificate relates to some Hawaii adoption that caused original birth certificate to be amended.

Some dude: have not heard of an adoption theory that had his mother, an American citizen, who during the relevant time was resident in US, put Obama up for adoption. Whether or not stepfather legally adopted him is surely irrelevant for whether he was natural born American.

Perhaps Dan Rather and Mary Mapes can ferret out the birth certificate.

@John Herbison --

Yeah, If you're speakin' Latin! For those of us speakin' English, it's common to use "media" as singular.

The adoption thing would put into question if he is a valid US citizen at all, having lost his citizenship and never took steps to get it back

That's not the only issue the adoption would bring up. If Obama was adopted legally in 1967, and the official birth certificate in Hawaii ever since then says that he was born in Honolulu and his father was Lolo Soetero, then that means that

1) he has no eligibility problem at all as far as the natural-born citizen rule; but

2) The campaign has released two documents that are supposed to be modern (laser-printed) Hawaiian certifications that the state of Hawaii shows the name of his father as Barack Obama from Africa. If in fact the official Hawaii record shows Lolo Soetero of Indonesia as his (adoptive) father, then his campaign trafficked in forgeries.

But, of course, that's only true if in fact the Hawaiian records show Soetero as his father. I'm speculating that might be it because of Michele Obama's comment that this was about Obama being adopted. Of course to anyone who has read Dreams and/or other official Obama biographical material, it is no secret that Soetero was Obama's father in Indonesia for a 1/2-dozen years four decades ago; whether formally or informally is trivia. The only thing about the adoption that could possibly have any modern relevance is if the campaign used forged documents to "prove" Obama's place of birth. If they are forgeries then they are forgeries, even if the most important information on them happens to be true.

(There is, of course, a different, even simpler, variation. It's possible that the official Hawaiian records have some truly trivial error on them -- something mispelled, etc. That would be consistent with the old "it's the cover up" problem. Because it would prove definitively that the campaign used fake documents.)

So, Oren thinks it is "absurd" to pay attention to the Constitution? Just the "natural-born citizen" requirement, or do you think there are other things which it is "absurd" to care about? If there are other constitutional requirements that you think are "absurd" to follow, just what would those be?

They're merely pointing out that in the light of Obama's refusal it is a logical inference that perhaps he was not born in the US. This is quite a reasoable sane theory... After all of the 6,000,000,000 humans alive today the overwhelming majority were born outside the US. There is nothing absurd or risible about advancing the proposition that Barak Obama may be numbered among this vast multitude.

Likewise George Bush. And Clinton and Reagan and every president, um, ever. Entirely possible that we've never had a president who WAS born in the U.S., because I haven't seen any of those people's birth certificates. Odd that nobody ever thought to question the birthplace of a presidential candidate until now. You're right, there is nothing risible about this whatsoever.

As to the notion that "Well it's reasonable to assume he's hiding something, because he hasn't produced the document we've requested..." I assume then that you also believe that Sarah Palin is not Trig's mom? After all, she has yet to produce a birth certificate for him. Suspicious, right?

Arkady wins the thread.

As for this:

"If such documents were released, then many of us would be more than happy to be wrong in our suspicions that Obama may not have been born in Hawaii. But to say that these suspicions are unfounded and that we are tin foil hat wearing nutters for having them shows a narrow-minded virulent orthodoxy on the side of the other side."

What is to stop you from claiming that whatever is released is a forgery? Since you are immune to facts and reasoned discourse, in your minds nothing you suspect can ever be proven false. In any case, the onus is on *you* to present compelling evidence of your allegations. If the allegations and purported evidence fail to meet even basic standards of rationality and credibility (as in this case, they do), the rest of us, court system included, are not obligated to listen. I'm sorry, but you and your ilk *are* nutters.

Note also, those devotees of the Berg lawsuit, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

The right way to oppose Barack Obama if you dislike him or his policies is the ballot box, writing op-eds, conversation with your fellow citizens, etc. But these preposterous allegations really don't do you or your cause any credit. Why can't you just disagree like a reasonable adult--why also try with flimsy or no evidence to undermine the legitimacy of his election? It makes your entire cause and country look childish and stupid.

So, Oren thinks it is "absurd" to pay attention to the Constitution? Just the "natural-born citizen" requirement, or do you think there are other things which it is "absurd" to care about? If there are other constitutional requirements that you think are "absurd" to follow, just what would those be?

It's absurd to make serious allegations without any credible proof. What's absurd is not the requirement, it's the conjecture and speculation without basis in reality. Show me the objective evidence that Obama was born somewhere else (i.e. name the place that he was born and why you think he was born there).

"Evidence" and "burdens of proof" have little to do with politics and political discourse. This isn't a oourtroom.

(1) There are legal suits about the eligibility matter.
(2) In general (politics, science, law, football), I require extraordinary claims to render extraordinary evidence. You have to have proof commensurate to your claims.

Elliot123 is right. Evidence doesn't matter!

Obama better prove
1. his citizenship,
2. his age,
3. that the 15 Amendment was properly ratified,
4. that "natural citizen" doesn't mean "old white dude"
5. that ACORN didn't steal like a hundred million votes to give him the win.

Until I see convincing, non-forged (i.e. not coming from anyone who doesn't hate Obama) evidence, he'll never be my President!

Thales makes a good point Obama really should prove he's not a slave before he becomes President. Sure, he CLAIMS to be of Kenyan descent, but I have yet to see any proof!

Joke if you want, but this is a serious Constitutional issue and I’m going to wine about it till Sarah Palin gets into office!

That scenario is outlandish.

I cannot imagine why Obama does not answer the internet fed rumors about his birth certificate! It's very suspicious!

And after he produces is BC, I expect release of his SAT scores, his college transcripts, his thesis, his client list, his Illinois senate records, his high school records, and the bible he will be sworn in on.

And once he produces those, I have others!

God love ya, Steve P. Sure, begorrah, 'tis the trustin' fellah that you are. I suppose you don't believe that old Dick Daley stuffed the Cook County ballot boxes for his good buddy Joe Kennedy back in '60 or that old Dick Nixon bugged the DNC headquarters in '74. I won't mention Aaron Burr who after all wore a funny hat. Nor Chester Arthur who provides a startlingly apposite precedent.

Political shenanigans? In America!! Never!!!

And after he produces is BC, I expect release of his SAT scores, his college transcripts, his thesis, his client list, his Illinois senate records, his high school records, and the bible he will be sworn in on.

Especially that last one. After all, if Obama doesn't hand over that Bible for physical inspection by his critics, for all we know he might actually be swearing his oath on a Koran with a fake Bible cover on it.

As regards dr's comments they;re utterly senseless.

why?

[liamascorcaigh OK. You have a point there. I was idiotic, and beyyoond. Obama is not being asked to prove a negative.

Still, my other 2 points hold, I think. Speculating without evidence is fun, but it does not make for a strong basis to demand evidence from the president elect.

It does make for a fun 4-8 years of internet sour grapes though.]

Dr: so you admit you're writing nonesense. Then I see no further reason to debate with you.

Dr: so you admit you're writing nonesense. Then I see no further reason to debate with you.

Very agile, you are. Yes, I admit we're writing nonsense. I'm only waiting for you to admit it as well.

Sarcastr, I not munching any sour grapes. I didn't support Obama but I don't dispute his democratic legitimacy. He won the election by several million votes. He has a popular mandate to govern. What I'm concerned about is his constitutional eligibility. If it comes to light that he was not 'natural born' all his actions and those of his myriad subordinates as well as any Acts of Congress he will have signed will all be subject to legal challenge including any criminal convictions under laws passed during his tenure. if all such concerns can be put to rest by producing his birth certificate, I don't think it's too much to ask of him.

[liamascorcaigh I am somewhat skeptical of your claim of objective concern, but I cannot prove it wrong. Still, there doesn't seem to be any there there, and absent evidence chasing down every possible Obama-disqualifying scenario would take forever.]

dr: The whole burden of my posts is that questions concerning BHO's birth are quite reasonable given his Kenyan father, his mother's footloose lifestyle and his grandmother's claim that he was born in Africa. This is compounded by Obama's refusal to clarify the issue in the only way it can be clarified. If George Bush's Chinese grandmother claimed he was born in Hunan province I would expect him to clear the matter up beyond dispute as well. If he prevaricated even to the extent of spending a significant amount of money on fighting court cases rather than produce his birth certificate I would have the same reason to be skeptical about him.

This is not Obama-specific (McCain has "natural born" problems as well), rather it arises from his transnational background and the rootlessness of his mother's lifestyle all of which bring the place of his birth into play. I repeat: it is he who has fed the flames by his refusal to produce his birth certificate.

This is beyond idiotic. Obama is being asked to prove a positive: that he was born in Hawaii. A perfectly straightforward thing to do if it is true.

True, it is a matter of proving a positive. And true, it's a perfectly straightforward thing to prove. The problem is that Obama's skeptics have been unwilling to accept the proof provided, and have instead responded by continually moving the goalposts of what constitutes proof.

When the attacks initially began, Obama responded by putting a copy of his Certification of Live Birth on his website. Did that settle matters? No. The Certification was declared a fake by critics; Jerome Corsi even went on TV and claimed it was a Photoshopped forgery.

Factcheck.org then sent folks down to Hawaii to personally inspect the Certification, to see if it matched the one on Obama's website. And it did. They held the original in their hands. They took photos of it, and posted those photos on the website. Did that settle matters? No. Critics accused Factcheck.org of being biased, and said that even if the Certification is real, the [b]Certificate[/b] might say something different. No explanation is offered as to why the official Certification would have information that completely contradicts the Certificate.

The Director of Hawaii's Department of Health then puts out a press release to set the record straight about the Certificate. Did that settle matters? No. Now the accusation is that, as evidenced by her choice of words, the doctor might be helping to hide something about Obama's place of birth.

A Hillary supporter finds Obama's birth announcement in a newspaper printed a week after he was born. Settle anything? No. It's suggested that other family members may have reported it, despite a foreign birth.

And if we're talking about the specific accusation that he was born in Kenya, there's the slight detail about his mother never having actually visited Kenya, while pregnant or otherwise.

Also, while not evidence in itself, if there were any legitimacy to the birthplace allegations, I can't imagine Hillary not using those to her benefit. A two-person race, and the other guy might be ineligible? There's only one reason for Hillary to not pursue that further: because it was meritless.

All this evidence is apparently unsatisfactory. Meanwhile, what actual 'evidence' have the skeptics been able to produce? I can only think of two bits, both of which have fallen apart under minimal scrutiny. There was a supposed Canadian birth certificate that was definitively proven to be a fraud (so definitively, I add, that no one even mentions it anymore). Then there was the conversation with Obama's Kenyan grandmother, where she supposedly said she was "present" for his birth. But listen past that question (at about 4:40), and you'll hear his grandmother say, repeatedly, that he was born in "Hawaii."

(Strangely, when Obama skeptics post that audio on YouTube, guess where they conveniently cut the conversation off at?)

If Obama requested a copy of his actual Certificate, and posted it to his website, would that settle the matter? Or would he be accused of posting a fake, as with the Certfication? If he allowed FactCheck to inspect it, would that settle the matter? Or would they be accused of bias, and their photos declared to be insufficient? What, shy of handing the physical copy of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth to Philip Berg himself in the presence of a Hawaiian official who could testify to its authenticity (if that), would satisfy the standard of proof that has been built up over this issue?

At the risk of repeating myself, Obama's grandmother said he was born in Hawaii.

Yes, and anyway this phony "revelation" was the result, not the cause, of the Great Obama Birth Certificate Investigation. So as you say, liamascorcaigh's skepticism comes down to two key factors:

1. Obama's mother was "footloose," which is code for "inclined to give birth in Africa."

and

2. Obama's father was a foreigner.

Meanwhile, GWB's mother is a confirmed lover of China, and his father was a well known globetrotter, and yet this arouses no suspicion. Go figure.

I love when the comment thread swallows the intentional farce of the OP.

It's true. Postophage-threads are always the craziest!

A conspiracy involves 2 or more persons attempt to mislead or intentionally withhold knowledge for some benefit. (One would think.) Is a politician capable of misleading the public? Yes, as a matter of fact, they've gotten pretty good at it, since accepting bribes continue to be acceptable.

But here is a response from Hawaii's Governor's Office. They have reassured that there is a record that he was not still born in 1961 as well as stated it proves his Citizenship. When I responded back asking if the document proves he was natural born citizen? And no comments had been made.

Aloha,

Thank you for emailing Governor Linda Lingle’s office. A recent article in WorldNetDaily.com (October 26, 2008) claiming that Hawai‘i Governor Linda Lingle sealed Sen. Barack Obama’s birth certificate is false.

Under Hawai‘i’s state law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18), copies of vital records may only be released to those who have a tangible relationship to the person whose record is being sought. Neither the Governor's office, nor any other office in the State of Hawai'i, can provide information concerning birth certificates, or produce birth certificates, to anyone except those who are listed in the law governing vital statistics records.

Vital statistics records, such as birth certificates, are protected by strict confidentiality requirements. Specifically, pursuant to section 338-18, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS), the Department of Health, which maintains these records, may not allow the inspection of a birth certificate, or issue a certified copy of a birth certificate, or disclose any information contained in a birth certificate, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record:

(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a non related co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
You can find the complete statute athttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/ hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/
HRS_0338-0018.htm
Mahalo,
Office of Governor Lingle

The question to this is extremely important, and should not be put aside. If you are bound by oath as a Senator to protect and preserve the Constitution, and there is intentional efforts being made to not provide the information being requested (Certification of Live Birth he posted contains language not normally found on a 1961 Birth Certificate, and was absent of the commonly found "Eye Color, Hair Color, Single, Twin, Triplet, etc., Doctor's Signature, nurse's signature, hospital, etc. etc.).

If this question was answered, why is it that the document was never requested nor obtained by Barrack Obama and shown publicly (blacking out the parts that are too personal if necessary.) so that all doubt can be washed away? I've personally inquired about his Birth Certificate since he never appeared to be listed under any Census as living with his grandparents.

You don't pick and choose when you pay attention to the Constitution. It's not an "At Will" foundation that may be buried any time it is convenient for them. So are we to ignore this part of the Constitution because it's too absurd to think that he wouldn't have already been qualified prior to entering the primaries.


And if you say nothing now, what right do you have to say something when your rights are being violated and nobody considers it a big deal?

tritium:
"(Certification of Live Birth he posted contains language not normally found on a 1961 Birth Certificate, and was absent of the commonly found "Eye Color, Hair Color, Single, Twin, Triplet, etc., Doctor's Signature, nurse's signature, hospital, etc. etc.)"

Doesn't the COLB contains the only relevant information:
1. his mother's name
2. place of birth- Honolulu?

Isn't any other information irrelevant to answering the constitutional question of whether he is a natural born American?

What is to stop you from claiming that whatever is released is a forgery? Since you are immune to facts and reasoned discourse, in your minds nothing you suspect can ever be proven false. In any case, the onus is on *you* to present compelling evidence of your allegations. If the allegations and purported evidence fail to meet even basic standards of rationality and credibility (as in this case, they do), the rest of us, court system included, are not obligated to listen. I'm sorry, but you and your ilk *are* nutters.

Because as I have said repeatedly, let's have a court of competent jurisdiction review the original document. We all have to put our trust in the system somewhere. You put it in the electronic copies of a dailykos posting of a document that the state of Hawaii doesn't even accept as valid for some of their own programs. I, and my 'ilk', try to have higher standards like puting our trust in a court with it's coercive powers to compel the provisions of documents and testimony. And for not trusting the same thing that you trust to uphold Constitutional requirements you call us nuts.

scattergood:

Because as I have said repeatedly, let's have a court of competent jurisdiction review the original document.

Really? You've said that "repeatedly"? Where, in this thread of 130 comments, have you previously proposed a review by a court of competent jurisidction?

We all have to put our trust in the system somewhere. You put it in the electronic copies of a dailykos posting of a document that the state of Hawaii doesn't even accept as valid for some of their own programs.

In a similar vein, who said anything about a Daily Kos posting? Kos has been mentioned once in this thread, and that was regarding Kos' treatment of the Palin story, not Obama. It's FactCheck.org, a somewhat less partisan site than Kos, that most everyone has relied on.

And why should we care what Hawaii requires? Obama isn't running for Hawaiian office. The U.S. State Department only requires a Certification, and that's not a new standard on their part. Why do you demand more proof than the Republican administration does?

Said a certain politician named O
"Whatever I say must be so!
It is a dead cert
I experienced birth
But as to the place
That I can hardly trace,
I was ever so young, don't you know!"

Obama is brilliant. Keep all of them spinning this non-story while he goes about doing real things.

The best are the comments that say, "I don't beleive the story but . . ." or "I don't care about the birth certficate but . . ."

The worst are the foundationless comments that say, 'the certification maybe a forgery and/or Hawaii maybe lieing.'

These people also make up thier own facts, like the grandparents could have slipped a false announcement in the papar 47 years ago. But according to the Department of Vital Records and the paper, the Honolulu Advertiser, in 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet for the newspaper to pick up that compiled these births. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. Thus, this is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records. The papaer didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records.

"God love ya, Steve P. Sure, begorrah, 'tis the trustin' fellah that you are. I suppose you don't believe that old Dick Daley stuffed the Cook County ballot boxes for his good buddy Joe Kennedy back in '60"

Dick Daley stuffed the ballot for Jack Kennedy's dead brother? This is news!

Wha? Jack Kennedy's father was not on the ballot.

This Dick Daley ballot stuffing thing isn't getting the proper attention. Isn't it obvious Barack Obama was the intended beneficiary of fixing that election?* Why would JFK push us into a war in southeast Asia but to eliminate Obama's eventual election opponent? Why has the FBI never released the personnel files of everyone who built and maintained the jets McCain flew? Why wasn't Obama even born until JFK was in office, other than to assure him plausible deniability? And by the way, when was Obama born? Nine months after the election. Coincidence? You tell me.

That McCain foiled the Daley-JFK-Obama plot by being a tougher bastard than Kennedy accounted for doesn't change any of the essential and obvious contours of the conspiracy.

(*And don't even get me started about Obama's racketeering with the current Mayor Daley.)

Why didn't they just record Barack's birth in the family Koran Bible. IIRC this is still accepted as proof of birth in a number of states. If that's good enough, certainly the "Certification" BHO has produced is good enough.

Much as I hate to admit it, BHO is absolutely right in not producing the "Certificate." Look what happened just a few years ago. Bush kept on producing service records and each new document provided the left with a new reason to call a fighter pilot a draft dodger. Kerry said he would produce his service records, never did, and now everyone has forgotten the equivalent questions about how faithfully he served out his commitment in the reserve.

Speaking of which, if we're going to talk about stupid theories about where BHO was born, whay has nobody raised the stupid question about whether he properly registered for the draft?