Gibbs on Birth Certificate; Fox News Covers; Buzz on $50,000 Billboard Initiative
WorldNetDaily’s initiatives into pushing for questions to be answered on Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility continue to make headway.
WND’s White House correspondent, Les Kinsolving, was given a chance to ask White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the eligibility issue (actual question occurs at approximately the 44 minute mark):
The report went on:
It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office as a “natural born citizen.” …
The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent “the truth and transparency campaign.”
At today’s White House briefing, Gibbs was contentious with Kinsolving before he ever asked his question. Calling on WND’s longtime correspondent, he said: “Lester, I’m a glutton for punishment.”
Kinsolving said: “Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, ‘I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.’ End of quote. Do you remember that statement?”
Gibbs: “I can confirm that he said that.”
Kinsolving: “Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can’t the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital – (laughter) – 400,000. …”
Gibbs: “Are you looking for the President’s birth certificate?”
Kinsolving: “Yes.”
Gibbs: “It’s on the Internet, Lester.”
Kinsolving: “No, no, no — the long form listing his hospital and physician.” (Laughter.)
Gibbs: “Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.”
And with that, Gibbs ended the briefing.
“This is what the White House thinks of American citizens who take the Constitution seriously,” said Farah in response to Gibbs’ response. “I think I speak for the 400,000 petitioners when I say disregard for the Constitution is no laughing matter.”
Farah was pleased, however, that the question was finally asked of a member of the administration – in public and on the record. He said it is likely to provide new impetus to the petition and billboard campaigns.
Update: Fox News’ Bret Baier gave the eligibility issue a mention during the “Political Grapevine” segment (at the 0:57 mark):
As long-time readers will recall, a spokeswoman for the current President once characterized such questions as “garbage.”
In related news, the London Times caught wind of the “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” billboard initiative:
WASHINGTON – When WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah launched his billboard campaign focusing attention on Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office, he predicted the effort would attract media curiosity – perhaps even more than the central issue of whether the president is truly a “natural born citizen.”
Less than a week after the billboard campaign began, media have already begun showing interest – even though, so far, only one billboard, an electronic one, is up and running as a result of the more than $50,000 raised so far.
Over the weekend, the London Times found it an interesting business story, reporting, “A right-wing website has collected more than $10,000 so far to help to fund a series of billboards to be erected around America questioning Barack Obama’s credentials for holding office. ‘Where’s The Birth Certificate?’ the posters will demand.”
Back stateside, the Washington Examiner also picked up on the campaign.
Blogs like StoptheACLU.com also weighed in.
“The buzz is starting,” promised Farah. “Directly investigating why Obama steadfastly refuses to show his birth certificate is considered bad form by most of my colleagues. But they don’t mind beating around the edges of this story – especially if involves poking fun at the one news service that is out of step with the rest.”
As the campaign grows, Farah says, so will “the buzz.” Beginning yesterday, WND placed a permanent image of a billboard on the front page for visitors curious to find out what the campaign is all about. It directs readers to a description of the billboard campaign, the petition for accountability on the eligibility issue that now sports nearly 400,000 electronic “signatories,” a directory of dozens of WND stories on the issue and and a place to purchase “Where’s the birth certificate?” magnetized bumper stickers.
Several months ago, Farah launched a petition campaign on the question of eligibility. It has now collected nearly 400,000 names demanding proof from Obama. Just last week, he announced the billboard campaign, which has already raised more than $50,000 in donations from the public.
Both efforts are part of what Farah calls an independent “the truth and transparency campaign.”
A current listing of citizen grand jury updates and eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
Historian Dude:
I think that the fact that Arthur’s citizenship status was never publicly determined would render him moot to either side of the debate, except for the fact that William Arthur was a resident of the United States, and a de facto/naturalized citizen of the United States for the entirety of Chester Arthur’s life.
If Chester Arthur could be ruled a natural born citizen jus soli and jus sanguinis, Mr. Obama would be the first President to be born after the Constitution was ratified who could not claim natural born citizenship jus sanguinis through both parents.
KJ:
So? He was still an Irishman, and not a Canadian.
So? Do consider him an authority somehow?
That is one possible explanation for the unique challenge to Obama. There are others, you know. Need I point a finer point on that?
Great…. So then you must admit that Arthur’s circumstance is of no help to the Birth cause whatsoever. Neither of us can prove negatives, but we can prove the fact that Chester Arthur was born to a foreign national, and still elected to be Vice President without anybody ever raising it as an issue.
I must not have read them yet.
He was an Irishman who immigrated into Canada. The obit states that he immigrated into New York and nothing about Canada.
Arthur’s opponent in the 1880 election, Bayard, denied simple citizenship to a person born in the United States to a German father when Secretary of State.
The decisions concerning United States citizenship requirements have been very inconsistent throughout history. Each person can cite cases to support their point of view. This is the first time that we have a President who is not without question a natural born citizen. If Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen without question, then no one would be asking questions. No one questioned Bush’s, Nixon’s, Kennedy’s, etc. citizenship, because there was no question.
There is no evidence that openly Chester Arthur claimed a foreign national father at birth although his father was a British subject on the date that Chester was born. Chester Arthur’s exact citizenship status has never been resolved and, as far as we know, the voters were not aware of his father’s citizenship status at his birth. William Arthur’s obituary reproduced in Hinman’s book did not even recognize that he had lived in Canada.
Naturalization has been held by courts to be retroactive to protect the interests of a naturalized citizen’s heirs specifically in property cases*. William Arthur was serving in an elected city position in Vermont prior to Chester’s birth**; it would require a court to determine if William Arthur’s citizenship status would be retroactive to the date that he was acting as a citizen (before Chester Arthur’s birth).
From Hinman’s book:
Hinman’s letter:
New York, January 7th, 1881.
Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator
Dear Sir: -What is the construction of Article II, S I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States – that “No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be eligible, etc.”***.
Yours respectfully, A. P. HINMAN
Bayard’s letter:
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, I881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.
The second paragraph in Bayard’s letter could indicate that Bayard was aware of Arthur’s citizenship history or it could be an answer to something in the snipped part of Hinman’s letter.
Speculation: Chester Arthur, who was running for VICE President may have informed Bayard of his father’s naturalization when he was 14 when he became a candidate. Garfield was not particularly strong Presidential Candidate. Arthur came out of no where and had a history of stuffing ballot boxes in NYC. If Bayard accepted Arthur’s candidacy without challenge (possibly assuming that the ticket had no chance), it would have been ungentlemanly to challenge his status after the election and beyond. If Bayard knew or personally objected, he didn’t make Arthur’s situation public.
Later as SOS, Bayard denied a person born in the United States to German parents simple citizenship. “Native Born” was not the same as “a native of the U. S.” to him.
**Hinman’s book shows an entry in the Fairfield City record (p. 53) that William Arthur was elected by the populace to a position of public service that was the equivalent of today’s school board twice (in March of 1829 and 1830), a position which today requires citizenship and residence in my school district.
*Courts have held that citizen heirs could inherit property provided that the alien had naturalized or formally expressed the intent to naturalize before death, effectively making the alien’s naturalization retroactive to the date that the property was acquired (Governeur’s Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 332 332 (1826)). Other retroactive claims to property include Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 116 116 (1867), “His present status is that of a person naturalized, and that naturalization has a retroactive effect, so as to be deemed a waiver of all liability to forfeiture and a confirmation of his former title.” (refers to Jackson v. Beach 1800, for a description see p. 157 of CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED
STATES, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. LETTER from THE SECRETARY OF STATE, submitting REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTI1ON ABROAD, December 20, 1906.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1906.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zdENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=%22Jackson+v.+Beach%22&source=bl&ots=m3xalTkVLz&sig=lrLNtiWkS9Q_c0_6qTv83VSneho&hl=en&ei=f7ISSuOeGYKjtgff56WWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA137,M1 .
Other interesting cases concerning retroactive naturalization status are cited in this reference.)
There is no evidence that he sought to disclose his citizenship details either.
Did you enjoy my “musings” published below?
KJ:
Since that comprehensively establishes his natural born citizenship, none of the other questions are relevant to his eligibility to be president. So frankly, I do not care about them. Neither, apparently does he.
Go to Amazon.com and see how many books have been written about Obama (both pro and con) beyond his own two. There is more written about him than any other single first term president in American history. I am confident that the version of his life he has provided is true.
Italy.
1) Arthur’s father was an Irishman. Not a Canadian.
2) Arthur was explicitly accused during his Presidency of not being a natural born citizen. But then (as now) it was understood that NBC related only to place of birth, not citizenship of parents. He was accused of being born in Canada, but never challenged on his father’s citizenship since that has nothing to do with NBC status, and his opponents knew it.
3) Then as now, Arthur didn’t have to prove anything, since his opponents had no evidence that he was born anywhere other than where he said he was.
4) There is no evidence that any attempt was ever made by anybody to conceal the fact that Arthur was born to a non-citizen.
Good for you. See? The Constituional process continues to work flawlessly.
Isn’t democracy a beautiful thing?
Chuck:
Pakistan has never, at any time in its history, ever denied entry to US citizens. This is another fake birther factoid.
During the time of Obama’s visit, Pakistan happily issued 30 day visas to any American tourist who showed up. You can find a copy of the US Government Travel advisory here: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
1. The document he displayed could not be held by a foreign-born person. The COLB of a foreign-born would show the actual foreign place of birth, not Honolulu.
2. Your “million dollars” number is yet another fake Birther factoid.
Again, a foreign-born person cannot get a COLB that lists their birthplace as Honolulu.
Do not mistake what he has provided to you personally with what he has provided to anyone else. You have to accept the simple fact that you personally will never hold a certified copy of his birth certificate in your hands. You will always have to depend on what somebody else who actually has held the real document has told you.
I am content that he provided the actual paper document to FactCheck, and they declared it authentic.
You don’t get to invent new “hurdles” just because you don’t like Obama. If you are unsatisfied with Obama’s documentation then you personally have the single most powerful vetting mechanism possible: you can withhold your vote.
Every state in the union permits the registration of unattended births. Hawaii is not the slightest bit special in this regard. If the only witnesses are the parents, that’s just the way it goes. If the authorities at the time decided (by whatever process) to go on and register the birth, then the birth certificate is absolutely valid.
Deal with it.
You have been misled. At the time the constitution was framed, the “de Vattel definition of natural born citizen” did not exist. Unless you are suggesting our Founding father’s were time travelers, it is impossible for them to have used de Vattel as their reference.
There is not a single “writing or statement” by a single framer of the Constitution that mentions anything about the citizenship of the parents.
I will say it again as clearly and as unambiguously as I can:
There are zero financial ties between FactCheck.com and Barack Obama.
The very fact that we disagree proves this assertion false.
It would eviscerate the foundational legal standard of standing, and thus create a de facto judicial filibuster that would cripple our government.
Your accounting of the temporal facts are in error. He was never once asked to release his long form certificate, his school records, his passports, or anything else on the Birther wish list prior to Berg filing the first lawsuit. That’s your fault, not his.
I can think of no more accurate way of responding than this: You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The independence of FactCheck from the Annenberg Chicago Challenge of ages past is absolute. There was not even a single individual human being that had any connection with both of them.
I will try to respond to what I think you were asking, since the question you actually wrote is incomprehensible.
An expert’s assessment of documents or document images are more authoritative than the assessments of rank amateurs.
He was not pretending.
Rank pseudolaw. The standards of proof are already established, and they have nothing to do with birth in a hospital or the presence of a doctor. You can read the standards here:
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
You are 100% in error here. The signature on the back and the registrar’s statement absolutely means the birth of place is correct. That is the only reason the statement and signature are there at all.
Tough. The law in every state of the union says otherwise.
If you imagine so, then do not vote for him. If the Framers believed this, they certainly could have said so.
They did not.
brygenon,
Unfortunately for both of us (as I’m having to now repeat myself), you seem to fail to recall what I’ve already said on this issue:
1. Since there is no controlling legal authority to enforce presidential eligibility, I don’t know even if a birth certificate (as in the 1961 one) is “enough” to substantiate;
2. Since there’s plenty of background documentation on this President, it seems reasonable to me that allowing that documentation to be revealed (unsealed) would go a long way in helping to determine if the President really is qualified, as in constitutionally qualified.
I, as an American citizen, have a right to know these things per the eligibility clause of the Constitution.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
You forgot to take into account my parenthetical immediately after the part you quoted! It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek response!
-Phil
Yes, there is. After being listed on his school paperwork as an Indonesian citizen, he traveled as an adult between Indonesia and Pakistan at a time when Pakistan was under martial law and did not allow entry to US citizens.
Sure. By smugly displaying a document that could be held by a foreign-born person, and hiding, at a cost of almost a million dollars, his actual full birth certificate and the rest of his basic documentation, he fully addressed the question. He addressed the hell out of it.
My point was that even if this document couldn’t be acquired by a foreign-born person – and it can – he has not provided the document. He has provided pictures on a website. The point being that the first hurdle is the fact that the document can be acquired by a foreign-born person, and the second hurdle is having his documentation vetted by a government agency whose responsibility it is to verify his eligibility before allowing him to take power at the head of our goverment and rule us as opposed to expecting everyone to accept a picture on a privately-operated website as the final word on the matter.
Yes, it can. Hawaiian law allowed for a parent to register a birth after the fact based on their own claim that the child was born in Hawaii. This leaves the door wide open for a foreign-born person to hold this document. The full birth certificate would reveal this and tell everyone that there is no proof he was actually born in Hawaii, or it would reveal his birth details such as hospital, doctor name, etc. He is fighting its release along with all other relevant documentation. What does that tell you?
The framers used Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” as their reference. Look up what it says a “natural-born citizen” is. They also made it clear in their writings and statements that this was their understanding of natural-born citizenship.
You admit later in your post that they do have financial ties to Obama.
Again, yes, one could.
Obama’s refusal to allow anyone to see the actual full birth certificate and insistence on displaying instead the short form that a foreign-born person could hold speaks for itself.
Again, yes, one could.
Explain how keeping his promise of transparency by releasing the basic documentation relevant to his eligibility for office would be a dereliction of duty.
Garbage. He could have released his documentation long ago in response to the public demand for him to do so and not in official response to any lawsuit. He released the short form and meant this to serve as the exact same thing.
And? If a group receives its funding from the same place as one of the candidate’s projects, the group has a conflict of interest and is not an appropriate entity to verify the candidate’s eligibility for office. Nevermind the blatantly fawning nature of their website as demonstrated by their factually lacking whitewashes of issues such as this, his relationship with William Ayers, etc.
Who the viewer is changes the fact that whether a document appears to be legitimate upon viewing an emailed picture of it does not mean anything? Explain.
He did no such thing. He simply ignored the clarification and pretended that they were talking about the same document by referring again to the short form.
Yes. And if the long form shows a hospital, doctor name, and other corroborating information, then Hawaiian birth is proven. If it simply shows that the mother walked in with a baby and claimed it was born in Hawaii, Hawaiian birth is not proven.
All COLBs are signed this way. But COLBs can be acquired by a foreign-born person. So, factually speaking, the signature on the back does not mean the place of birth is correct.
If someone’s documentation reveals that there is no evidence that they were actually born here, they should not be allowed to rule us. End of story.
The entire purpose of the natural-born citizneship requirement was to ensure that our ruler’s allegiance lies with us alone. The idea that Obama, who was born to a foreign citizen father, who was a citizen of a foreign country at birth, who traveled to another foreign country later in life and became a citizen, and who refuses to release his basic documentation relevant to his eligibility even as those who are being ruled demand it, would fit this purpose is absurd. Don’t twist yourself into a pretzel trying to wiggle out from under it.
Phil wrote:
Obviously there is evidence that could shown, because conclusive evidence has been shows; I cite it all the time: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html . It has the specified in 28 USC 1739 for proving non-judicial state records, also the features the state department requires on a birth certificate to establish citizenship by http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf and obtain a passport http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf .
Obama exhibited a properly attested and embossed state record, which thus invokes the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitutions. It is the same kind of record that Hawaiian-born Americans now routinely use to prove citizenship by birth. Phil, you seem to be arguing that the kind of birth certificate Obama showed is unacceptable for occupying the presidency, and that’s utter nonsense because no other president showed any birth certificate at all.
Phil says:
June 2, 2009 at 7:45 am
“Your interpretation notwithstanding, the point remains that Mr. Obama has used his surrogates to keep anyone from being able to see anything official about his background, regardless of how circumstantial or anecdotal such evidence would be to eligibility.”
When you are the accused in a legal proceeding, your counsel absolutely should prevent your accuser from trying to use the discovery process to learn things that have nothing to do with the case at hand. Your counsel should also protect you from having the plaintiffs conduct discovery as a publicity campaign. You would expect your attorneys to do this if you were in this situation. To release publicly an unsigned subpoena, before discovery in the case had even begun was, to put it mildly, extremely bad form and outside of proper legal procedure. It was an “in your face” move by plaintiff’s counsel. Obama’s counsel was justified in threatening sanctions.
Once again, discovery in a lawsuit does not give either side free rein to go into anything they want. That’s why subpoenas have to be signed by a judge, he decides of the info they want is germaine. Anecdotal stories are not generally admissible as evidence.
Historian Dude:
Mr. Obama only addressed carefully chosen questions and the only document offered was his COLB.
I read some of the opposing blogs today. The COLB and his two books that claim to present his life/ideas in his own words figure prominently in the justification the he is eligible, without any concern about confirming his version of his life with disinterested third party information. May I suggest that you pursue the due diligence that you exercise when answering comments on this site in considering the limited information that Mr. Obama has offered?
You are personally a dual citizen? May I inquire to what other country you owe allegiance?
There is no evidence that openly Chester Arthur claimed a foreign national father at birth although his father was a British subject on the date that Chester was born. Chester Arthur’s exact citizenship status has never been resolved and, as far as we know, the voters were not aware of his father’s citizenship status at his birth. William’s obit did not even recognize that William had lived in Canada.
Naturalization has been held by courts to be retroactive to protect the interests of a naturalized citizen’s heirs. William Arthur was serving in an elected city position in Vermont prior to Chester’s birth; it would require a court to determine if William Arthur’s citizenship status would be retroactive to the date that he was acting as a citizen (before Chester Arthur’s birth).
Mr. Obama could never have such a claim. Perhaps he is the only American President that had a foreign national father “at birth” and thereafter.
I invite you to read my “musings”.
Although I am an Independent and not a PUMA, I did not vote for Mr. Obama in 2008 and did what I could to urge 300 others not to vote for him in the days before the election. Unless he presents the documents to prove that he is eligible, I will do whatever I can (money, time, and work) to prevent his reelection in 2012.
Phil:
Huh?
Completely free, anonymous and open debate is absolutely what you get over there. Registration does not sacrifice a shred of anonymity.
Well well well.
It looks like the Soetoro supporters here refuse to challenge my statements regarding Amendment XIV. The statements still stand:
1. Amendment XIV can’t be used to qualify candidates for Article II Natural Born Citizenship because of the ‘or naturalized’ clause.
2. Birth certificates satisfy the born clause in Amendment XIV and therefore satisfy ‘citizen of the United States’ only.
3. As such birth certificates are sufficient for qualifications for senators and representatives stated in Article I, but insufficent for presidential eligibility stated in Article II.
Prove my logic is wrong. Remember, Amendments SUPERCEDE prior Constitutional statute.
Good luck.
HistorianDude,
So much for completely free, anonymous and open debate, huh? (That was meant as a jab from all those who claim that either my site has become too censored for the opposition or that other so-called “birther” sites have completely shut down their registrations)
I nevertheless thank you for the invitation.
-Phil
Kenneth:
1) This is at its core not true. On several Birther websites the “long form” birth certificate has already been declared a forgery, sight unseen.
2) Dual citizenship has nothing to do with “dual citizenship agreements.” Every sovereign nation gets to ascribe citizenship to anybody they want. No other nation’s laws matter. If two or more countries happen to ascribe their citizenship to the same person, they are dual citizens even if they don’t know it.
3) Under US law nothing could have required Obama to reapply for his US Citizenship on his return to the states at age ten. Under the explicit terms of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Obama cannot under any circumstances have lost his American citizenship as a child.
This is a meaningless quibble. The information necessary by law to prove citizenship at birth is identical on both.
And the issued certificates would reflect the actual foreign place of birth. They could not legally say “Honolulu” if the birth actually took place in Mombassa, Kenya.
One can certainly wonder all sorts of things. It is, after all, the source of so much interesting fiction.
Phil:
Anonymous lurkers are still allowed. Just not unregistered anonymous lurkers. You’re welcome back anytime. We don’t even need to know it’s you.
Never underestimate “amusement” as “some sort of an effect!”
KJ:
You forget Chester A. Arthur.
First. there is no evidence that Obama ever carried a foreign passport at any moment in his entire life. [Unneeded verbiage]
Second, So what? I carry a foreign passport too. And yet I am a natural born US Citizen, born on American soil to two parents who were also born American Citizens.
Your “belief” is noted. Sadly it is completely unsupported by any law.
Then you have a powerful legal remedy with which to act on your lack of confidence: withhold your vote.
He has fully addressed the citizenship question. He did so one year ago this month.
If there was any evidence whatsoever that he was not eligible, then you would not be at fault.
Sadly… there is no such evidence.
Chuck says:
1. Since we were explicitly talking about a “piece of paper,” we certainly could not have been talking about just the Internet image. As we used to say in Ranger School, “Nice attack. Wrong hill.”
2. A COLB that says “Honolulu” as the place of birth cannot be acquired by a foreign born person.
3. Being born in the United States does, in fact, automatically make him a natural born citizen. The “two citizen parents requirement” is imaginary pseudolaw that exist nowhere in the Constitution, in any American Statute, and is contradicted by established legal decision.
[Unneeded psychobabble] The claim that they have “financial ties to Obama” has been so thoroughly refuted that I can no longer give anybody who makes the claim credit for an honest mistake.
1) A foreign born person could not acquire a short form that said he was born in Honolulu.
2) None of this is evidence contradicting the COLB. [Unneeded verbiage]
No. I don’t. After all, we know for a fact that a foreign born person could not acquire a COLB that said he was born in Honolulu.
In this case, absolutely.
I will correct you guys just as often as you insist on making this false statement. He is not fighting their release. He is fighting to preserve the critical legal standard of “standing.”
And that “same place” is the foundation of a conservative Republican and personal friend of Ronald Reagan, run by a woman who supported John McCain in the last election.
Not when the person viewing it is the official spokesperson for the Hawaii DoH.
And Gibbs was correct to disabuse him of the false presumptions that underlay the question.
You have been misinformed. The lawsuits commenced before anybody bothered to even ask him for the long form.
Nothing in that statement is true.
A COLB is exclusively an abstract from a “long form” birth certificate. If a foreign person has a COLB, that can only be because they also already have a “long form” birth certificate too. And if the “long form” shows their foreign place of birth (as required by law) then their COLB would too.
1) Everybody seems to keep missing the fact that the Fukino statement is not the only place a Hawaiian official has said anything about Obama’s place of birth. The COLB itself bears the statement and signature of the Registrar, Dr. Alvin Onaka that Obama was actually born where it says he was; Honolulu.
2) Every state in the Union has the same “loophole” for registering unattended births. The bad news for you is that a BC for an unattended birth is, by law, still absolute legal proof of citizenship.
[Unneeded verbiage] There is nothing in American law that says dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are mutually exclusive. Again… we are a sovereign nation, and no other nation gets to tell us who we consider as natural born.
Musings:
Suppose someone named Leslie was born physically a male and chose to become a female. Let us assume the following:
Legally Leslie would be a female, although “she” could not bear or nurse children.
Leslie’s DNA would reveal “her” sex at birth as would “her” original vault birth certificate.
A modified birth certificate could be issued that would show “her” sex as female.
Let’s say that individuals are being chosen for a modern day Noah’s ark and “Leslie” wants to be included as a human female. “She” is a highly respected mother and member of the community; many people support “her” effort to be included on the ark. “She” has not resided in the community but for a few years and the community does not know that “her” children were adopted or any details of “her” past that “she” has not personally disclosed.
Legally, wouldn’t “Leslie” have absolute proof that “she” was a female, in spite of “her” lack of ability to fulfill the critical role of an ark occupant: the ability to reproduce the species? Legally, couldn’t “Leslie” protect “her” privacy, refusing a medical examination including a DNA analysis and any access to records in “her” former life, presenting only the modified birth certificate supporting “her” effort to be included on the ark?
Putting “Leslie” on the ark would be the politically correct thing to do. Are there situations where common sense should prevail over “absolute legal proof” and political correctness?
Should the truth about “Leslie” be uncovered before the ark is closed and a fertile born female can be included in the ark?
brygenon,
Again, I’m a little confused at the “silly”-ness characterization you’ve just used. I have been told by various opposition commenters on this site that there is zero evidence that could be shown, one way or the other, to determine this President’s eligibility. Obviously, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
Everyone — everyone — already knows that background documentation exists for this President. The issue is one of access. Perhaps folks like you don’t believe such access should be allowed, and I disagree with such a sentiment, especially when we’re talking about getting to know someone who occupies the highest office in the land.
-Phil
Phil wrote:
But it does show how silly was your claim, “As far as many of us know, no other President has had nearly the mountain of sealed evidence that would reveal his background who has chosen to not unseal said evidence (for whatever the reason).”
brygenon,
Sorry. This simply doesn’t pass the “Yeah, and?” and “you and what army?” tests.
In other words, while it sounds really special to say that this politician has had to face a very unique question among Presidents, speaking for myself, I can certainly say that there really is nothing special about this politician. He is a politician, just like many of the other Republicrats in DC. However, I think there is reason to question his eligibility. Obviously, you do not. Nevertheless, it’s as simple as that, and simply because Mr. Obama may have been “the only US President that exhibited his [alleged] birth certificate” doesn’t diminish the importance of the eligibility clause.
-Phil
earl,
I also think it’s just as bad for you to put words into my mouth. I think I specifically stated that Mr. Obama didn’t actively go about sealing his records. Rather, I did say — and I think the evidence is incontrovertible — that Mr. Obama has done everything he can to make sure that nobody can go about finding a way to look at his records.
It’s one thing to have one’s records protected by privacy; it’s quite another when one is running or is the President and actively keeps people from finding out who he is.
Your interpretation notwithstanding, the point remains that Mr. Obama has used his surrogates to keep anyone from being able to see anything official about his background, regardless of how circumstantial or anecdotal such evidence would be to eligibility.
It is for reasons such as this that I question this President.
-Phil
It is not a birth certificate. It is a picture on a website. And you have to realize that, setting aside the problems with his smug display of this document (which can be acquired by a foreign-born person) while hiding his actual birth certificate and other basic documentation, being born in the United States would not automatically make him a natural-born citizen. To be a natural-born citizen you must be born to parents who are citizens.
You immediately lose credibility when you refer to FactCheck as an independant organization. Not only do they blatantly whitewash stories on Obama’s behalf on a regular basis, they also have financial ties to Obama through their source of funding.
A foreign-born person could acquire the short form easily. And Obama’s refusal to allow anyone to see the actual full birth certificate is definitely an evident reason to suspect that it would not prove Hawaiian birth.
You consider a document that could be acquired by a foreign-born person to be OVERKILL in the matter of establishing Hawaiian birth. Gotcha.
You are going to have a very hard time convincing those who believe that a President should actually prove his basic elibigility before being allowed to rule us that he shouldn’t. It’s only logical.
It would be a dereliction of duty for this President, who promised transparency, to release the basic documentation concerning his eligibility for office?
Disgusting.
It’s not that he has had them sealed. It’s that he is actively fighting their release.
Zero… except for the fact that they receive their funding from the same place.
You may not realize this, but whether or not it appears to be legitimate when viewing an emailed picture of it is beside the point.
Name another president where the same circumstances prompted people to ask for it?
Gibbs was being asked about the full birth certificate, and the person who posed the question was very clear about this.
Garbage. Anyone who ever hid anything could use this excuse.
But the lawsuits stemmed from his refusal to provide his basic documentation in the first place. He refused, and there was no legal “standing” issue involved, only whether or not he was going to practice the transparency issue he preached.
It absolutely is a fact that there is a major difference between the COLB and the full birth certificate. The COLB can be acquired by a foreign-born person. The full birth certificate showing a doctor’s name, hospital, etc., can not.
It’s not quibbling to say that those who claim Hawaiian officials confirmed Hawaiian birth are lying. Hawaiian officials simply confirmed that they have his full birth certificate on file. We do not know whether it actually shows a documented, attended Hawaiian birth or simply a birth registered after the fact by a parent who claimed their child was born in Hawaii (which was allowed under Hawaiian law, creating a wide open door for a foreign-born person to acquire documentation and therefore have the short form Obama is providing – their full documentation, though, would reflect this… and Obama is hiding his).
Sure. But citizen and natural-born citizen are two different things, and the entire purpose of the natural-born citizenship requirement was to ensure that our ruler had sole allegiance to our country. A dual citizen would not fall into this category.
Historian Dude:
Mr. Obama has claimed a foreign national father at birth, the first President to do so. Let us also not forget that Mr. Obama is the first person to serve as President who may have had a foreign passport, British or Kenyan or Indonesian, as a minor. If he exercised his unique opportunity to maintain that foreign passport (allegiance), he could have carried it for some “official” purpose as an adult. I believe that the act of using a foreign passport for any “official” purpose as an adult should deprive him of any claim to natural born status, if he ever had it. Any full adult who assumed foreign citizenship for any purpose, hid this act, and choose to serve as President would not have my confidence. I would consider the act of assuming foreign citizenship to be indicative of a casual attitude concerning citizenship/allegiance and the act of not disclosing the act to be a lack of character. This is hardly a partisan political question.
If Mr. Obama was concerned about maintaining the integrity of the Presidency and protecting it from legal challenge, he had adequate opportunity to fully address the citizenship questions before he took the Oath of Office. He chose not to do so, but decided to ignore/stonewall/fight the questioning and assume the Office. If he is compelled to produce these documents now, who is at fault of harming the Presidency? The people requesting more information about his birth and citizenship history, or the Candidate who was not timely forthcoming with the requested documentation?
Please consider the following although you may not believe it is true. If Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as President, would we not be at fault if we do not continue to request the documentation?
Consider the precedent being set.
I agree that there is misinformation on this issue on the net. I would like to propose that we set up an area where only the known facts are listed with appropriate citations.
Phil wrote:
Reality is pretty much opposite to what the birthers pretend. Barack Obama is the only U.S. President that exhibited his birth certificate.
We know President Obama’s father was a foreigner from Obama’s first book and some of his major speeches. Many Birthers thought, incorrectly, that it means he’s not eligible to be President. Some birthers argued both that Obama hides his past because it would show he’s not eligible, and that we know he’d not eligible because of what he made a point of telling us.
Pete claimed:
Annenberg Political Fact-Check is non-partisan. It’s run by the University of Pennsylvania, and Barack Obama has no affilitiation. Obama was, some years ago, on the board of an independent charity also named “Annenberg” because, like Fact-Check, it got major funding from the Annenberg foundation.
The Annenbergs themselves were quite partisan: dedicated, long-term Republicans. Walter Annenberg died in 2002. Leonore Annenberg then served as chairman and president of the Annenberg Foundation, until her death in March of this year. In the 2008 presidential race, she endorsed John McCain.
Phil says:
June 1, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“Just because you or others in the opposition don’t like my use of the word, “sealed,” doesn’t mean I’m not going to use it.”
Whatever, but “Obama had his records sealed” is a lie. Obama’s records are protected by privacy laws just like yours and mine.
“In fact, in the Keyes v. Bowen case (if I recall correctly), when the petitioners went after Occidental College records via subpoena, the Defense went out of their way to not only object to the subpoena (which is, of course, their right), but they went further to threaten sanctions against the petitioners if they pressed further for record requests.”
Of course they threatened sanctions. Educational records are not germaine to whether Bowen checked Obama’s eligibility. It was an attempt at a fishing expedition, a pure publicity stunt, and a serious over-stepping of bounds for the stage of the proceeding. They withdrew the request, because, of course, they knew they couldn’t justify how the school records had anything to do with Obama’s eligibility. They never intended to. It was a stunt.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
I’ve addressed most of the other points you’ve brought up in other posts…
Excellent! I’m honored and flattered that an opposition web site of the caliber of Politijab would continue to pay so much attention to my site. Yes, I said, “continue.” In fact, before PJ effectively “closed” their doors to anonymous lurkers, I had great fun taking a look at what they had to say, especially on a particular thread that was solely devoted to my site.
Man, I’ll tell you: when your adversaries devote an entire discussion to you, you know you’re having some sort of effect! Unfortunately, since the “lurking” capabilities are closed down now, I haven’t been able to take that one thread and post it in my “In The Media” page, where my site is gloriously (or is that ingloriously?) referenced by other sites, including DemocraticUnderground and DailyKOS (yes, I read my stats).
Enjoy the discussions over at Politijab. While I may completely disagree with what sites like it may promote, I’ll always fight for their right to express their opinions; hopefully they would do the same should something atrocious happen with sites such as my own.
-Phil
How about: Obama’s records are “conveniently hiding behind privacy laws” Oh Hog Wash!!! America has a right to know. That imbecile is strategically laughing. These people are actually pretty intelligent. You got to give that to them. They may be liars. They may be flaming liberals but they can think. They are like that scum in the very corner of the bathtub where the wall meets that you just can’t quite get to. The scum just lies there and laughs because he knows you can’t reach him. The fact that they’ve carried this charade on this far attest to the fact they can get away with taking it as far as they want. He said it himself: “I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy” They know that anybody with the means to challenge them will never have the guts to do it. Even if they did, the media and the other 50 percent of the flaming liberal population will ridicule them and laugh so loud that it will never matter. I do wonder what Gibbs means by ‘burgeoning’. This is what I mean by strategic or calculated. Burgeoning means “budding… new growth…” something to that effect. There’s nothing NEW about this birth controversy. We’re going on over a year now. What’s burgeoning about it? It’s curious.
HistorianDude,
No. I’m simply attempting to move the conversation forward.
This point confuses me. Let’s say that Mr. Obama were determined to be ineligible. Since this is not a crime, he would simply be walked out of the White House, no further question. Mr. Biden would then assume the office of the presidency. In theory, Mr. Biden would continue the policies of Mr. Obama.
Therefore, the concept of an Obama presidency would not be overturned, per se. Instead, the concept of upholding the eligibility clause would have been enforced.
-Phil
earl,
Just because you or others in the opposition don’t like my use of the word, “sealed,” doesn’t mean I’m not going to use it. I have personally never promoted the idea that the President actively took action to make sure that his background documentation is kept from public view.
However, the opposite is very true. He or his surrogates have fought every petitioner who has ever requested that his background documentation be revealed. In fact, in the Keyes v. Bowen case (if I recall correctly), when the petitioners went after Occidental College records via subpoena, the Defense went out of their way to not only object to the subpoena (which is, of course, their right), but they went further to threaten sanctions against the petitioners if they pressed further for record requests.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
While I know you don’t have high respect for me and/or commenters on my site, I do believe that have anecdotal evidence to help substantiate this President’s eligibility.
-Phil
Phil:
Winning the lottery would be great too. But first, you have to actually play.
Have you bothered to make any effort to find out “the particulars of this transaction?”
1) That is what we have. But it is not all that we have. We also have at least two independent organizations who have declared it authentic. FactCheck (who examined it in person) and WND (who employed “document experts” in an otherwise unknown process).
2) We also have nothing to contradict it. I.e. we have no evident reason to suspect it of being in any way false.
STOP!!!
Ms. Lines has never disagreed that the COLB is genuine. She has said that THE IMAGE cannot be used to say anything about whether or not the COLB is genuine.
You have to STOP claiming Ms. Lines said things she never said. You have been caught in that falsehood too many times to imagine you can continue to get away with it.
We know that the COLB is enough to substantiate natural born citizenship. Eligibility proceeds automatically from that. Each and every voter then makes the determination regarding eligibility based on their personal conclusions regarding whther or not the Article II criteria have been met.
1) It’s not “a mere piece of paper.” It is a State certified birth certificate and thus, it is by law absolute proof of his natural born citizenship.
2) Actually, that would be a dramatic tightening of the historical standards. So in the absence of evidence contradicting it, I actually consider it overkill.
Your prurient interest does not make any of that information relevant to the issue of eligibility, nor does it magically generate a “right to know” that does not otherwise exist anywhere in law.
Life is filled with little disappointments. If you are unhappy with what you already know, then you already have a powerful legal remedy.
Withhold your vote.
Nobody, not even the President, has any obligation to jump through hoops in order to disprove meretricious speculation on the part of his political opponents. You and I both know that these “hypotheses” are complete inventions with no evidence to either support them or even elicit them in the first place.
Ah…. But there you are egregiously in error. And the details of your error again put the spotlight on the fact that Birthers and Obama are fighting over completely different issues.
Even if the President isn’t harmed, the Presidency is. If a President can be compelled to release any and all documentation just because a small number of his political opponents demand it, the demands would never stop and the government would grind to a halt.
It would be a gross dereliction of his obligations to the office to release anything you asked for, no matter how seemingly harmless.
Because it serves no utilitarian purpose. Certainly, you do not imagine for a second that Obama (or any president) feels obligated to sooth the concerns of the fringe.
Why would I do that, when we both know you would just censor it anyway? But that’s okay, the post you did not allow through moderation is getting good attention on Politijab.
Phil:
“Protected by privacy laws” is both more accurate and more honest. “Sealed” implies an active concealment of documents that otherwise would be accessible. You know that is not the case.
And yet… that’s exactly what you just did. You made a very explicit statement comparing what Obama has released versus what other Presidents have released. I simply asked you to justify it.
Am I to conclude that this sudden furious backpedaling is an acknowledgment that your statement was… ill considered?
In honesty, no it is not.
The point of the Birther movement is to try and reverse the results of the November 4, 2008 election. “Eligibility” is merely a means to that end.
Historian Dude writes that releasing the birth certificate:”…would end no speculation at all”. The Dude is wrong! It would end speculation about the birth certificate. It is true that it may not end speculation about the President’s eligibility to serve as President, because of other matters such as his becoming an Indonesian citizen at a time when there was no dual citizenship agreement between Indonesia and the U.S., which would have required that President Obama reapply to regain his U.S. citizenship on his return to the U.S., which could be an even more significant matter.
Perhaps Historian Dude is right about the continued use of the COLB (Certification of Live Birth) document in the state of Hawaii, but he has to be wrong about both the COLB and the long form Certificate of Live Birth being the same, because two things cannot be the same and be different at one and the same time. The Certificate of Live Birth contains much more information including: 6d. which answers the question of place of birth which includes for information about the birth occurring in other judicial districts, and item 11. that identifies the birthplace, which might have been on foreign soil.
According to Hawaii Statute 338-17.8, certificates were also issued for births when the legal parent while living without the State of Hawaii who had declared the State of Hawaii their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceeding the birth or adoption of such child.
What is more important is a December 19, 2008 State of Hawaii, Office of Elections document re certificte of Nominations in which the National Convention of delegates representing the Republican Party verifies that John McCain and Sarah Palin both met the requirements of the offices they were seeking; however, in the case of President Barack Obama and V.P. Joe Biden, it is signed off on by Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of the Democratic National Convention. Mr. McCain’s eligibility was also challenged, and Congress apparently certified that Mr. McCain was elligible (they may have been wrong). But one can certainly wonder how Ms. Pelosi, and the other signatory for the Democratic National Convention were able to certify the “natural born citizen” status of Mr. Obama given that so many of his personal records were not available for scrutiny, and proof of being a natural born citizen of the U.S. is one of the only three qualifications for determining eligibility under the Constitution?
Phil says:
June 1, 2009 at 3:51 pm
If you don’t like the word, “sealed,” then perhaps you could insert another favorite word that otherwise conveys “blocked from public view,” which anything protected by privacy laws is.
Obama’s records are protected by privacy laws that protect each and ever one of us. The “he’s not eligible” community states over and over that “Obama had his records sealed” to disingenuously suggest Obama requested some special legal action to block access to his records. He did not. There is a dramatic difference between “he had his records sealed” and “his records are protected by privacy laws”. Specifically his Birth Records are protected by Hawaiian law. His medical records are protected by HIPAA. His educational records are protected by FERPA, the Federal Educational Records Privacy Act. I just wonder why you never correct anyone Phil, when they say ” Obama had his records sealed.” It’s untrue and you know it. Everyone’s records are “blocked from public view.”
HistorianDude,
Ah, now this is constructive:
1. If you don’t like the word, “sealed,” then perhaps you could insert another favorite word that otherwise conveys “blocked from public view,” which anything protected by privacy laws is, by definition. Let’s not let the semantics be an encumbrance for a discussion;
2. Honestly (I think you’re asking this question in loaded format, which really isn’t helpful in moving a discussion forward), I’m simply not seeing how requests by and about previous Presidents has any bearing on the current situation; granted, it could be a guide, but since there’s little history on the clause being challenged in the past, I’m not sure how fair such a comparison really is. After all, isn’t the point to make sure the current White House occupant is legitimate?
I again thank you for reasonably constructive questioning and I would hope we can continue in this manner going forward.
-Phil
Wrench:
Ignoring that I am not a Liberal… your use of the word “plausibly” here is just funny.
1. We have no idea how many people really signed the petition at all. We have only Joseph Farah’s word for it, and he has not been a reliable source of information until now.
2. The petition had no safeguards to prevent the same person from signing it over and over again.
In short… like almost every other Internet petition or poll, the offered number is meaningless.
HistorianDude,
Then it would be great to know the particulars of this transaction because, as you know, we currently have a certification of live birth (which I’ll even admit could be legally construed as a birth certificate, per se) that doesn’t seem to be backed up by any evidence of a transaction to produce it having taken place (and, as you know, regardless of who makes the claim, it’s pretty easy to print a piece of paper out and say that “this is good enough” to establish eligibility).
If I could have you take an objective look for a moment at the question, what we have is a piece of paper that someone, somewhere produced. I will be the first to admit that, when it comes to postings on the Internet, we really have to be suspicious to a certain degree even if we think we know the source of said information (after all, even “reputable” news sources get things wrong from time to time).
Furthermore, speaking for myself, I would be significantly more trusting of the COLB if it were being hosted on a government-run web site, even out in the great State of Hawaii. Yet, let’s say for the sake of argument that the COLB is genuine (though Ms. Lines disagrees with this sentiment). Because we have no controlling legal authority in existence to enforce the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution, how do we know that the COLB is “enough” to substantiate eligibility? Who makes this determination?
Perhaps you will respond, “The People make such a determination.” To which I would respond, “Do we really want to ‘establish a new historical trend’ by having a mere piece of paper as being ‘good enough’ for the person who’s ambitious enough to seek the highest office in the land?”
In other words, if we know that this President has lots of background documentation that is currently unavailable for public inspection due to privacy laws, and if we know that such documentation would go a long way in revealing exactly who this President is (and let’s not get into the whole thing about biographies (auto or what not) about the President; I’d rather see the source of such background information for myself), why is it that people such as myself must be castigated for even raising the question of looking into that documentation?
Am I suggesting that the documentation would reveal anything we don’t already know? Well, I don’t know, and that’s precisely the point.
For instance, what if Mr. Obama’s Occidental College records showed that he applied for scholarships as an Indonesian citizen? What if we found through his documentation that he was and is really a Muslim, and the bow he made to the Saudi King was out of respect for his (the President’s) Islamic beliefs?
Would such revelations necessarily remove him from office due to eligibility? Some have commented here that such situations may not, so either way you look at it, the President isn’t harmed by unearthing such documentation; let’s get the information, find out for sure, and, if needed, get definitions down from the Judiciary.
You can certainly respond that the American people had their opportunity to vet the President during the campaign; I’ll wager that could be a good point to make. However, the truth is, if some people question the President based on a large amount of documentation that could reasonably establish the background of this President, why shouldn’t the President allow such vetting? Does the vetting process have a statute of limitations? Of course it doesn’t.
It’s likely that you’ll respond back to me with all sorts of things such as questions of my character, how I run my web site, and so on and so forth. However, that’s really not all that engaging for the purposes of discussion. You can still continue to do that, and if you do, I’ll likely allow the comment to go through with no response (thereby giving you the last word), because you already know where I stand, the kinds of questions that I ask, that I’m not stopping, and that you don’t like any of it.
On the other hand, maybe you could come up with some new questions for me to answer; that would at least constructively move the thread forward.
It’s your choice.
-Phil
Civis Naturaliter Natus:
And how astounding that the “alleged newspaper articles” managed to find their way into every microfilm and paper copy of the newspapers in every public library in Hawaii.
Now THAT was a neat trick!!!!!
[Unneeded sarcasm]
——————-
One more point… The Obama’s lived in the guest house in the back, not the main house at that address. This has been common knowledge for a long, long time. How did you miss it?
John:
And since neither of those have anything to do with eligibility, no clear thinking person cares.
Pete:
This link is a total lie. It says (for example) that:
“Factcheck.org, the ‘unbiased’ truth seeker that has published Obama’s Certification of Live Birth that they say proves Obama was born in America, in ‘truth’ is operated by the totally biased Annenberg Foundation that gave Obama and Bill Ayres $110 million to spend on improving education.”
No it is not. Factcheck is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, not the Annenberg Foundation. In fact, the Annenberg Foundation runs nothing. It issues grants to other organization, and that’s the extent of it.
There is zero… I repeat, zero connection between FactCheck and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (or Obama or Ayers), and anybody confusing the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
Let’s look at this other blatant lie from your link:
Not only is this not a quote from the State of Hawaii’s official government website, it is not even a paraphrase. The State of Hawaii absolutely accepts the COLB as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii. What it does not accept it as is proof of ethnic Native Hawaiian blood.
There are a number of other blatant falsehoods in that link you gave, but pointing out just those should do for now.
Actually, I cannot make heads nor tails of what you’re trying to say. Michelle Obama’s job was with the University of Chicago Medical Center and was not funded by Annenberg.
Nonsense. Hawaii has never denied that it was requested. But as to what they said about the authenticity of the COLB, here’s what Janice Okubo was quoted saying about it by Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Phil:
1. You are not being honest when you call it “sealed.”
2. Name another president that has revealed any of the information Birther’s are asking for prior to leaving office?
Phil:
Of course.
HistorianDude,
Would there be a record of such a transaction?
-Phil