Obama’s COLB: State May Not Recognize, Long Form No Longer Produced
Via TheObamaFile.com, the Hawaiian Department of Home Lands currently has more stringent guidelines for being eligible for certain State programs than many in the opposition require for being President:
There are two categories of documents used in determining eligibility: primary and secondary.
Primary Documents
The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
- A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
- A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
- A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.
You will need the certified birth certificates for:
- Yourself
- Your biological father; and
- Your biological mother
The state Department of Health, (DOH), Vital Records Section, records documents by island and district (geographically) and by the date of the event (chronologically).
If your biological parents’ documents don’t clearly prove that you have at least 50 percent Hawaiian ancestry, you will also need certified birth certificates for:
- Your biological father’s parents; and
- Your biological mother’s parents.
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL. [final paragraph emphasis mine/TheObamaFiles']
Hawaii Home Lands won’t take it, but Obama insists it certifies him to be Commander-in-Chief.
Here is an example what a long-form, Certificate of Live Birth looks like:
The final paragraph of the above “Primary Documents” section ends accordingly:
If you are adopted, your biological birth record is probably sealed. In this instance, DHHL staff may be able to assist you in getting the ethnicity of your biological parents. [emphasis mine]
So much for the opposition fighting over the use of the word, “sealed” to allegedly “falsely” describe the fact that Mr. Obama doesn’t allow public access to his background documentation.
There’s more. The Star Bulletin reports that you cannot receive a certificate of live birth from the great State of Hawaii any longer:
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
We found a discussion of “the truth about Obama’s birth certificate” on the Web site FactCheck.org — www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.
The organization describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
It says a “certification of live birth” is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. Information included in the document might differ from state to state.
Nevertheless, Hawaii has previously claimed to have Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on hand. And, as WorldNetDaily points out, the above Star Bulletin article raises more questions than answers:
…Obama’s “citizenship” was never the question raised during the campaign or after the election. The issue raised by WND has consistently been that Obama failed to prove he was actually born in Hawaii and thus constitutionally qualified to become president as a “natural born citizen” – which requires that the birth took place in the United States.
The qualifications for the Hawaiian Home Lands program require a certified copy of a standard birth certificate – also known as the “long-form certificate” filled out in the hospital and including details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician. …
According to Hawaii’s Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, the state only issues “certifications” of live births since 2001 when the health department went paperless. It is only available in electronic form, she said. …
She did not explain how those needing a standard long-form birth certificate to qualify for programs such as those offered by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or to establish proof of eligibility to be president could be fulfilled. She said the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.” She did not, however, cite any specific rulings, and the Supreme Court has not taken up the issue of whether the certification of live birth would qualify a presidential candidate as eligible under the “natural born citizen” clause.
Many of members of the public commenting on the Star Bulletin column raised similar questions:
- “I’m fifty years old and I need to apply for a passport,” wrote one. “So I scan some representation of COLB onto my Facebook page. If I take my laptop to the DMV, can I just open my laptop to show my web page to the clerk who will then verify my citizenship and issue me a legal passport? I’m sorry but some documents need a paper trail.”
- “To be president you need to be a ‘natural born citizen,’” said another. “That means you are born in this country of ‘parents that are citizens.’ Note that both ‘parent’ and ‘citizen’ are plural. His father was a British subject and, yes, under the laws of both the United States and the UK at the time [when] he was born, Obama’s citizenship was passed by descent of the father. These are the facts. We have laws and no one is above them.”
- “There seems to be a great deal of secrecy surrounding this whole situation,” said another. “I’ve read that he has three legal teams keeping his info private. He has also had all hiscollege records sealed. So this is transparency and change? Why all the mystery?”
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Question:
What attorney would accept as evidence an unsigned, redacted computer-generated form in place of a certified birth certificate?
Answer:
All the lawyers in congress, about 99% of the House and Senate.
Question:
What to Do With Such Incompetent Lawyers?
Answer:
Fire them.
The C.O.L.B. is not the original birthing facility document. Hawaii is NOT destroying the original documents, for without them the C.O.L.B. form is worthless.
The C.O.L.B. contributes nothing to Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. That is moot because he is a dual national; Kenyan at birth from his father and U.S. from his mother under the out-of-wedlock provision.
Without proof the C.O.L.B. was generated from birth certificate data, or a compulsory Hawaiian birth registration under Hawaii statute § 338-5, the only proof of Obama’s birth place is his grandmother’s recorded statement held by attorney Phil Berg.
DCA,
The FactCheck.org article speaks predominantly about the certification of live birth; HI DoH officials have said nothing officially regarding the certification, only the certificate.
Further, the photos to which you refer include a stamped signature from 2007 with no frame of reference showing that it’s even from Mr. Obama’s alleged certification.
The qualifier, “in so many words” is a leading conclusion by the FactCheck.org article. There is no direct official citation from the HI DoH regarding the certification; only the certificate (which nobody has seen).
For the purposes of anything but presidential eligibility, very likely. However, according to the State Department, there is no such law that stipulates anything regarding certificates or certifications with respect to presidential eligibility.
Personally, I am looking for evidence wherever it resides.
Quite simply, somebody submitted birth announcements to two newspapers. However, this really proves nothing, per se, as I could just as easily submit a birth announcement that unicorns were born today in Honolulu, HI.
-Phil
Actually your entire case now is based on the allegation that the COLB we have all seen is a forgery. Which is highly implausible.
Fact:
The factcheck photos reveal the state seal and signature of the official in Hawaii.
Every other speculation put forth by the Birthers has fallen apart. Example: The “long form” assertion – was completely demolished by the DoH.
Why is it that all of the evidence cited always points back to born in Hawaii?
The fact is they hospital and DoH are not able to confirm private protected medical information about individuals. You are hiding behind that. The COLB says Honolulu. The DoH confirmed the COLB in so many words. In any courtroom the COLB is accepted.
Tell me this: Why are you looking in Hawaii for evidence of a birth outside Hawaii?
How do you explain the indentical birth announcements with a Honolulu address in two newspapers on the sameday )sourced from the DoH)?
DCA,
I think you had the concept correct until the last sentence, considering that there is no direct official comment on the part of HI DoH concerning Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth.
-Phil
Well lets see. The State of Hawaii has confirmed that the COLB is the same as a BC and that their system works exactly has many have reported on this site over the months. It is a computerized database with data taken from originals. Thus, the BHO COLB is indeed reflective of what is on the original paperwork.
I think this is a closed matter at this point. BHO born in Hawaii.
Can anyone produce an example of a Hawaii COLB issued to an individual known to have had one of those foreign births registered in Hawaii circa 1961 that lists a city in Hawaii as the birthplace? So far not one example has been produced.
Once again the Birthers are at a loss. Time to move the goalposts.
Phil says:
The claim in your article, “Hawaii Home Lands won’t take it,” is a lie.
brygenon,
The below is also true:
Further, it should be remembered that Hawaiian officials have confirmed that either there is or they believe there is a birth certificate from 1961 for a Barack Hussein Obama; that has never ceased to exist, apparently.
Therefore, regardless of what may be available in 2009, the 1961 document still exists and is retrievable under the correct circumstances.
-Phil
The Hawaiian Department of Home Lands, under the administration of Hawaii’s Republican Governor Linda Lingle, has updated the web page cited in the article: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
The text, quoted in the article above, that birthers had used to try to argue that Hawaii does not recognize the COLB is gone. The page now enplanes:
Phil,
I appreciate your heroic patience and openmindedness to discuss with Black Lion, brygenon, HD, and the other obots who stopby, the details of the facts and points of law.
But increasingly it appears that they have no similar interest. They see themselves as missionaries who must deprogram us patriots and convinnce us to use their warped unconstitutional mindset.
While we keep asking questions and pointing out necessities of law and the US Constitution, they have long ago abaondoned these niceties and feel that their patriotism requires them only to deprogram us…
I for one am more and more convinnced of the justice of our cause, and of O’s ineligibility, by the mere fact of their irrational behavior which is so contrary to the founding principles of a free people upon which this nation was founded.
For us the Constitution is the law, for them it is the law only when it uphold Zero, and means nothing when it puts him in any shadow of doubt….
That’s the difference between a free people and the sychophants of a dictator, in my opinion….
My research reveals that it is only the Dept. of Health that no longer provides a source for applying to recieve a certified copy.
Certified copies are now obtained only from the Recorder of Deeds.
Source–Missouri Dept. of Health
brygenon,
Based on your commentary, it is quite clear that what I’ve posted on the various points to which you refer that you have either read them and summarily dismissed them out of hand, or you’ve intentionally ignored them. Either way, remember that it is only the left in this country that equates questioning this President with something as superficial as race.
-Phil
Historian Dude:
The State Department has the power and authority to determine citizenship status, i.e. whether an individual is a citizen of the the United States, just like Secretary of State Bayard did when he denied a person born in the United States to a German father simple United States citizenship.
The State Department however does not have the power to determine if an individual (who is their current boss) is a natural born citizen as specified in the Constitution as a requirement for the Presidency. To determine that definition of natural born citizen, the one that the Framers intended at the writing of the Constitution and not one made by Congress or by State Department practices, a definition that has never been clearly determined and never tested before in a Court of Law by an individual to whom it could only apply, we must have a possibly ineligible person serving as President (or Vice President) of the United States examined for his citizenship status, probably in the Supreme Court.
We are indebted to Mr. Obama for his actions that may ultimately result in a clear definition of “natural born citizen”.
Phil wrote:
Phil, you got spanked on that. A spokesperson for Hawaii’s state Department of Health, under Republican Governor and McCain supporter Linda Lingle, said:
“The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii“. http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
Plus President Obama’s document meets U.S. Department of State criteria for a “birth certificate” “To establish a claim to U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States”:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
When you first argued that, I thought it was a joke. Have you ever shown your state birth record, and if so were you then required to show some kind of transactional record whereby you acquired it? I’ve never heard of that, and it seems counter to the manner of proof Congress prescribed for state records (see U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 1, and 28 USC 1739).
Barack Hussein Obama is the only U.S. President who exhibited his birth certificate. Forty-three previous Presidents and we never heard of this requirement. For all those others no official documentation at all was fine, but for Barack Hussein Obama a state certification of live birth in Honolulu Hawaii is not good enough. For years, Hawaiian-born Americans have been using such certifications prove their U.S. citizenship by birth, but when Barack Hussein Obama shows his, suddenly the form isn’t acceptable. We never heard of anyone needing a receipt to validate his birth certificate until American voters elected President Barack Hussein Obama.
As I’ve said before, I don’t know each individual birther’s deal, but don’t tell me it’s a coincidence that the special new requirement are for the black man with the Muslim name.
Stel Pavlou,
Correction: A certification of live birth — not the same thing as a birth certificate, something I’ve shown on a previous posting that even the Hawaiian Department of Health declares — was allegedly produced for Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, nobody has produced any record of the actual transaction used to acquire the alleged COLB, so, for all that anyone knows, the piece of paper showed up one day and everyone assumes that it’s Mr. Obama’s. And yes, I have asked some what I would call prominent opposition commenters here on my site about the unknown transaction, and the only response I received was a retort of, basically, “Why, that’s a stupid question. What does it matter how the COLB was received? Don’t you know that it obviously came from the President?”
Who, exactly, did this? The only thing that the Hawaiian Department of Health said was that they have Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on file; they cannot, by law, vouch for a computer-generated certification being substantial enough for eligibility, because they don’t have the authority to do that.
So, the following questions must be asked:
- Who authenticated the certification of live birth as being genuine?
- By what authority did said party perform such authentication?
- Did said authority directly and explicitly make a statement claiming that the certification of live birth is sufficient to determine presidential eligibility?
- If so, by what law did said authority make such a claim?
- If the above is true, did said claim on eligibility occur prior to the 2008 presidential election? If not, why not?
The point is to get folks like you to question assumptions. Everyone assumes that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. I think there’s anecdotal evidence that strongly suggests he’s not. Everyone assumes that Mr. Obama promised “hope” and “change,” but nobody ever asked the question, “Change to what?”
I cover the eligibility issue on my site because it’s a fascinating constitutional question, something that has rarely been questioned before. So far, I’ve found nobody who can conclusively show that Mr. Obama is, in fact, eligible to be President.
I also cover certain States’ rights issues on my site, because I’m interested in federalism. And there are certain other topics I cover from time to time as I see fit.
I can assure you that my post archive is chock full of information for you to glean that I’m not simply “react[ing] against [eligibility],” and various other sites have done the same thing since late last year.
-Phil
Phil,
I’m simply calling it how I see it.
The birth certificate was presented, it was authenticated. What on earth is the point in continuing the sham outrage?
If you’re not insane, then I have to ask what you hope to achieve?
It isn’t getting at the truth of the matter, so what’s your goal?
As far as I can tell from your site, you’re against a lot of things. President Obama mostly. That’s fine. But being against a thing isn’t particularly challenging. It requires someone else to put in the work of doing something, and for you to just react against it.
If you want to change minds why don’t you tell us what things you’re actually for?
Just my two cents.
Obama’s a fraud Phil. He has dual allegiances. His adopted father in Indonesia was a Muslim. You think Obama grew up in a culture of Muslim beliefs or American? Its quite clear that Obama is smug towards Americans, and has no clue what is happening on “Main Street”. He’s lying about saving 150,000 jobs when 1.5 million were lost. He cozies up to our enemies and befuddles our Allies.
He’s a USURPER, and an arrogant one at that. Americans arent’ going to sleep on this Phil. He’s one arrogant S.O.B. sealing his records, and not having the decency and respect and nobleness to clear this issue up.
Does the American Poplulace deserve to know who their President is, and his background? You bet your a[--] we do!!! This is sick, you know why? Because, the Supreme Court, Congress, and everyone in his Cabinet are complicit. Because they all know. Bush knows, Cheney knows, Eric Holder knows, Pelosi knows, they’re all accessories complicitly.
Stel Pavlou,
That was actually me requesting that any commenter civilly discuss whatever agreements/disagreements they may have.
When individuals make the kinds of comments such as what you’ve just made, I have to ask the question — why did you stop by? Do you think that if you toss in a tersely-worded comment that somehow I’m going to proverbially pack up and go home simply because you disagree with what I and other folks say?
After all, you typed my domain’s name into your browser’s address bar for a reason, out of who knows how many other sites are on the blogosphere (I do appreciate the patronage, nevertheless!).
-Phil
Your website requests that I “be nice”, so I’ll be as nice as I possibly can.
You’re bat[----].
There are enough legitimate things on which to take issue with President Obama should one wish to do so, and I say this as one of his supporters.
Crusading against a fantasy helps no one.
Seeking_Justice,
There are plenty of other blogs and different types of sites for you to peruse on the blogosphere. Feel free to move on; I will continue to question.
-Phil
it’s time to give it up on on the bc issue and make sure it never goes unquestioned in the future.
Please, for the sake of holding our country together. I once was a very strong advocate of seeing the bc too but lets move on…..
brygenon,
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Shhhhh. Nobody’s supposed to know. I am part of a group that is so secret that I don’t even know I’m a part of the group.
-Phil
Phil says:
Phil, your paragraph there makes sense except for the phrase, “no, that can’t”.
Your medium makes this an Internet thing; your message makes it a wild conspiracy theory.
Air Force Brat,
Thanks for the kind words, but I can assure you — as Rush would say, I’m nothing more than a perfectly harmless, “lovable fuzzball.”
-Phil
HistorianDude,
Well, let’s see. DHS claims I’m a “right-wing extremist,” I’ve had another commenter here call me a “Communist Anarchist,” and now you’re insinuating that I’m a liar, and not just a liar, but a “patho”logical one, at that.
And you wonder why my comments come across to you as nonsense? Try actually reading what I say with an open mind before spewing forth such nonsense out of your upper orifice.
Again, if you would actually read what I write without an immensely “patho”logical bias against me, you would see that I’m not disagreeing that the State Department can make certain conclusions regarding one’s status.
However, we don’t have the Department’s response under cross-examination, so I’m not willing to draw such conclusions that the State Department can subsequently declare a candidate eligible for the presidency, as your morbidly obvious bias is leading you to do.
Why don’t you improve your communications with me by trying this: respond without all of the pseudo-psychobabble fillers you’ve just used against me.
It otherwise sounds like you’re being such a disagreeable commenter that you’re becoming quite adversarial, acting like somehow I don’t have a right to my own opinion, no matter how much your opinion disagrees with mine.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
(Oh, sure, why not…)
What you’re really trying to say with the above is, “Phil, if you would simply agree with my opinion, there wouldn’t be a use for this discussion.”
The real problem here is not that I don’t see what you say; it’s that you don’t see what I say. Even worse, you completely dismiss what I say — even when most of what I say is my opinion — and then expect me to follow your opinion.
With all due respect, that’s not having a conversation; that’s practicing totalitarianism of thought.
-Phil
brygenon,
Come to think of it, so is my blog. Wait, no, that can’t be true, because this is a real keyboard upon which I’m tapping keys, you appear to have an actual comment to which I’m responding, and I have a blog that generates traffic on a daily basis.
-Phil
Phil — remind me to never get on your wrong side.
You do have a way with words.
Civis naturaliter natus:
We understand this argument completely. It is the only Birther argument that has actually gotten in front of the US Supreme Court having successfully negotiated the issue of standing. It was denied without comment.
Obama’s birth certificate was shared with those 300+ million citizens of the USA one year ago. 130 million of them went onto vote. 70 million of them voted for Obama.
It is documented that only one of them is his legal name.
Unlike yourselves, we do not believe that you have any monopoly on the label “patriot.” We know that just as many of us have shed blood for this country as you have. We believe that you have every right to question whatever you want, but that you have no right to expect anybody else to take you seriously if you cannot come up with a good reason for the questioning. We believe that the trolls should not be fed, that not all questions are created equal, that one does not need to destroy the Constitution in order to save it, and that ideas founded on falsehood should be fought by those founded on truth.
And we believe in the Constitution and system of government that has resulted in Barack Obama becoming the 44th President of the United States.
Benaiah:
De Vattel is irrelevant to Article II of the US Constitution. It was already ten years old (and de Vattel was already dead for thirty) before the first time the phrase “natural born citizens” was ever used in any edition of his “Law of Nations.”
I know that some Birthers are fond of theories that require time travel. i had hoped you were not one of them.
Phil:
I am taking that as exactly what it is: expert testimony by the highest executive authority for determining citizenship that President Obama has been determined by them to be a natural born citizen.
See… you’re finally catching on. The reasons for that difference are primarily these:
Expert testimony vs. anonymous testimony.
Statutory authority vs. neither authority nor even identifiable qualifications.
You’re starting to babble, Phil. I have said nothing remotely close to this. Instead what I am doing is objectively judging between expert testimony and anonymous internet rumor.
Certainly you are capable of the same judgment, but it does not meet the needs of your agenda. So instead you pretend parity that does not exist. If the need arose, you would call an alligator a lizard.
Do you not know what “expert testimony” means either? The list of your willful equivocations is growing frighteningly long.
You know exactly what I’m “trying to pull,” Phil. The State Department’s response does not “create” law. It is a statement, under oath, by an expert and statutory authority regarding Obama’s citizenship status. The law is unchanged. The facts under that law have simply been demoinstrated.
Another word you should look up, Phil, is “pathos.” Because your repeated fallback to this pathetic canard is starting to make you look entirely clueless.
Again…. The State Department has the power and authority to determine citizenship status. The fact that this determination proves anyone eligible for the presidency is just a happy coincidence.
Phil:
State Department determinations of citizenship status are, in fact, binding law.
Phil:
No “psychobabble,” Phil. Your continuous squirming to get around the objective facts are clear demonstrations that you understand them to be true and cannot challenge them directly. Instead you engage in verbal contortionism to sustain an argument that is refuted by those facts.
Such intellectual yoga would be unnecessary if you and I did not both know that is not true.
The vast number of words you used to make essentially no other point is another indication that I scored a bullseye with that comment.
bob strauss says:
June 9, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“Wouldn’t it be nice if someone in our government could make an official statement, one way or the other, to settle this matter of eligibility, and citizenship of Obama.”
Many someones in our government have already corroborated Barack Obama’s citizenship and eligibility. On Oct 31,2008 when the Health Dept of the State of Hawaii said it had Obama’s original Birth Certificate on file. On Dec 15, 2008, when The Electoral College cast 365 votes for Barack Obama. On Jan 8, 2009, when the entire Congress opened and certified the Electoral Votes without objection. And on Jan 20, 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn into office. Born in Hawaii, Eligible, Currently the President.
rrobin, I would not use World Net Daily as a source for any legitmate information. Joseph Farah has been caught in so many lies, especially regarding Obama, that it would take too much time to document. As I have cited many time here on Phil’s blog, WND back on August 23, 2008, in a article written by Drew Zahn said the following…
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
So no matter what they write now they can’t escape the fact that they authenticated President Obama’s “birth certificate”. So it is kind of interesting that now they are writing articles on how Obama has “sealed his records”, which they know is false. Go to the following site and you will see how many times WND has been caught in a lie or lying to smear President Obama. They can never provide evidence of their accusations. So every time you or any birthers try and reference that site to support your claims, remember they “found Obama’s birth certificate to be authentic”. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndliar09.html
Phil says:
No Phil, that’s not true. Senator Kyl did not identify his own sources. He refereed the constituent to Snopes.com because Snopes investigated and debunked the rumors circulating on the Internet.
The whole eligibility matter is just a wild Internet conspiracy theory. Debunking it is the work of Snopes, FactCheck, ObamaConspiracy.org, and guys like me. Courts and Congressional representatives dismiss such nonsense as efficiently as possible.
Robert asked, “What if Obama, Sr. found this out and divorced Stanley Ann Hobama for infidelity? What if Obama, Sr. did not find this out until after “Junior’s” Kenyan birth?”
Barry Soetoro traveled from Indonesia back to Hawaii alone at the age of 10 according to his autobiography. The most likely reason for this was that Barry was identified as an abandoned refugee in Indonesia and flown back to Hawaii with travel documents for a refugee. Later, Stanley Ann and Maya flew back to Hawaii to register Maya’s birth with the Hawaii Department Health Services.
Meanwhile, Barack Sr. flew back to Hawaii from Kenya for a short visit with the Dunham family. I wouldn’t be surprised if an NGO, such as the Ford Foundation, paid for Barry’s and Barack Sr.’s airfare. Barack Sr. probably appeared in family court to acknowledge Barry as his son and to relinquish his parental rights to Barry’s grandmother, Toot.
Toot uses Barry’s status as an Indonesian refugee to acquire scholarships to some of the finest schools available. Even as a refugee living in the US, Barack would have to register with Selective Service in 1980.
The fact that Stanley Ann is aware of Hawaii statute to register foreign births is reason enough to suspect Barack was born outside of the US and the his birth was registered before he was one years old.
Robert,
Thank you for your logical and feasible analysis. The United States social attitudes in the early sixties were quite different from the present day: very prudish. The “sexual revolution” of the sixties had not yet begun. Your analysis includes steps that the Dunhams would have done to protect their wayward daughter who would have been 18 (still a minor? but able to marry without parental permission) when Mr. Obama was born (mother’s birthday 11/29/1942, son’s 8/4/1961).
I too have wondered about the presence of both Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann in Hawaii in 1970 and in a position for Obama Sr. to officially adopt Mr. Obama.
Note that the photos commonly seen on the internet from the 1970 trip were taken in the San Francisco airport. Mr. Obama’s family did a lot of flying for being “poor”. Did the “Obama family” meet on the way into the country? Or when someone is leaving? The former would involve less flying and money.
The school records and passport records would be soooo informative. It is interesting that Mr. Obama has claimed foreign travel occurring in intervals of approximately five/ten years, the renewal interval for a passport. Maybe it’s coincidence, maybe not.
It is apparently difficult to determine who is a natural born citizen unless the child is legitimate and born in the United States to a married mother and father who are citizens. When illegitimacy and adoption are included, how is natural born citizenship affected? The courts need to address the whole question of what is a natural born citizen.
The biological father of a son can be confirmed by a DNA test of the Y chromosome. If Obama Sr. is Mr. Obama’s father, Mr. Obama and his living half brothers in Kenya will have identical Y chromosomes.