It's surely starting to look as if he's hiding something. I wonder what.

I figure it's something embarassing.

Maybe he isn't really black?

Actually, I know someone like that! His mother lied about who is father was, even to the hospital, and it went right onto the birth certificate.

I know another family that put the woman's husband's (not the real father's) name on their baby's birth certificate.

This sort of thing goes on all the time. Of course, if the baby was born here, it does not affect citizenship.

From experience in researching my family's history, I can say that every state is different and where and how you ask for documentation can result in different documents.

However, I've never requested anything from the state of Hawaii.

QUESTION:

What happens to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation as Supreme Court Justice if the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” Presidential eligibility requirement is subsequently determined applicable to Barack Obama on the basis of Article 2’s exclusion of dual citizenship birth (doesn’t matter whether Obama born in Hawaii since his dad was Kenyan/British citizen at the time)? It would seem prudent, if not dereliction of Constitutional duty in not so doing, for the United States Senate to defer voting on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation at the very least until there is determination, now imminent, on standing in Kerchner v. Congress (USDC NJ) on that precise issue (Congressional failure to take up the raised and known constitutional ineligibility question prior to declaring a Presidential winner in the vote of the electoral college). For the full Senate now to proceed to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor (an otherwise lifetime appointment) before then, would be a knowing and very substantial exacerbation of any inherent Constitutional crisis — compounding the previous Congressional dereliction. That is, the Executive Branch, as well as conceivably all actions of a Congress under a President determined ineligible, would leave the Supreme Court as an essential unfettered remaining Branch of the Federal Government, that is unfettered so long as Mr. Obama’s nominee to the Court is not yet confirmed by the Senate.

Will not one Senator, let alone Republican Senator, raise this issue on the Senate floor? The nation is watching.

Leave a Reply

We all know that the President is a planned product. Groomed, petted, telepromted and funded; his way is made plain by a hazy group of leftists in and out of the US. So it's silly to focus on him. If he becomes too unpopular or if something happens to his corporal self--Hillary or simialr will step right in. In fact that's a feature not a bug. Hillary wasn't popular enough to get elected on her own, she's now being hyped as the pragmatist, it would snuff conservative media.

Personally, I'd like to see the form, because I'm curious about anything I'm not allowed to see, especially when the government is hiding it.

That's where I am on the issue, and for that reasons I have some sympathy for the True Believers (I think that's the category you defined). I think Obama's birth is irrelevant (as I believe he was born in Hawaii and that the Hawaiian government wouldn't go out on a limb to lie about it if he wasn't). But what I want to know is what is on the long form (or the "original") that Obama wants to keep hidden.

Ditto for his school records.

I would go so far as to make the disclosure of those items a condition to voting for the guy, but I wouldn't have voted for him based on his voting record and previous employment (and his association with fascists/racists), but that's just me. Obviously, those weren't important to the people who voted for him.

Disclosure of those items now isn't going to change the outcome of the election, so why not release them? The fact that Obama hasn't released them makes me suspicious that there is something on the records he doesn't want known.

It will eventually come out. The facts may not be released in Obama's lifetime, but aren't Democrats always concerned about their Legacies (intentionally with a capital "L")? At some point his 1) Deceit, 2) Dolt Status, will become known, and the history books will be revised to include it (whatever "it" is).

Do you know if there is a specific time frame in which an original birth certificate (if it exists in public records) must be released? Is it part of the "Freedom of Information Act"? I would think that it might be X number of years after someone dies. Oh, I wish I was younger, only to be alive to find out what was on the long form that he didn't want disclosed.

Feel free to explain this away

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

,if you can.

Trust but Verify....do you trust Hawaiian Officials with no way of verifying???

I think Not.

Do you trust Obama with no way of Verifying????

I think not.

kz gets it right. Anything from official sources, Hawaii or otherwise, is now as likely to be a fabrication as not.

I can't know one way or the other. If I were forced to place a bet before God I would bet he was born in Hawaii.

The Democrats have essentially owned Hawaii politically for fifty years although, oddly enough, they have a Republican Governor at the moment. Who thinks they would now have any records that would damage him?

The not-Hawaii faction is trying to prove a negative. They cannot unless they prove an exclusionary postitive.

i.e. you cannot prove he was not born in Hawaii without showing he was born elsewhere. So, do you want to believe documents from Kenya or Indonesia?

The guy is President because the Electoral College chose him. Only Congress can remove him under the Constitution. And until early 2011 the Democrats run Congress. They won't remove him for anything.

After 2011 the GOP could marginally control Congress. It is unlikely they could remove him w/o a large majority.

O has the high ground. Birthers carry the burden of proof and must show evidence.

IMO the best place to look is in travel records. Any that might show his mother ENTERED Hawaii with a baby at the right time. Or departed from somewhere else with a baby at the right time.

Some airline might have applicable passenger lists, even ticket stubs, decaying in storage. I doubt it.

But immigration and customs records either don't exist or are the control of governments. So it is back to trust.

This sounds plausible.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/08/in-plain-sight/#more-6118