Check out the place of birth: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg and the stamped attestation: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

I am well-aware of what the alleged certification of live birth claims. This still does not disprove the point that the Hawaiian Department of Health has never offiicially claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

That’s not how state records are proven. See 28 USC 1739 and the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.

Leading conclusion. I have only ever stated that I have a question regarding the origins of the alleged certification of live birth.

They did their job and provided a legal state record that proves Barack H. Obama II was born in the U.S. over 35 years ago.

We assume that the alleged certification of live birth originates from the Hawaiian Department of Health. In lieu of a transaction that supports the date stamp of the certification, we can only speculate as to the document’s origin.

Further, the only thing that the Hawaiian Department of Health confirmed is that a birth certificate exists for Mr. Obama. They have never made any official, direct comments concerning the alleged certification of live birth; any such comments have been derived from a discussion concerning the Department’s commentary on the actual birth certificate and/or sites such as FactCheck.org.

-Phil

brygenon [wrote],

Fact-Check inspected and photographed the actual document:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I readily admit that the folks at FactCheck.org have drawn numerous unsubstantiated conclusions:

1. The Hawaiian Department of Health never claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (they only confirm that there is a birth certificate on file);

Check out the place of birth: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg and the stamped attestation: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

2. There is currently no public record of who procured Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth from the Hawaiian Department of Health;

That’s not how state records are proven. See 28 USC 1739 and the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.

3. The Hawaiian Department of Health never claimed that any document substantiates Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.

They did their job and provided a legal state record that proves Barack H. Obama II was born in the U.S. over 35 years ago.

But she couldn’t draw a conclusion from the scanned image. Annenberg Political Fact-Check inspected and photographed the actual document:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I readily admit that the folks at FactCheck.org have drawn numerous unsubstantiated conclusions:

1. The Hawaiian Department of Health never claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (they only confirm that there is a birth certificate on file);

2. There is currently no public record of who procured Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth from the Hawaiian Department of Health;

3. The Hawaiian Department of Health never claimed that any document substantiates Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.

-Phil

Reality is that birthers have a perfect record in court — 100% failure; zero for dozens.

But it gets even worse for all Americans:

1. There is no law on the books that enforces presidential eligibility;

2. There is no definitive definition issued by any Court that defines what it means to be a natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility;

3. The Hawaiian Department of Health has never claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (they’ve merely stated that they have a birth certificate on file);

4. Mr. Obama is documented to have been a British citizen at birth.

-Phil

What’s left for birthers to accept is that to the people who control the election process i.e. the 50 states, DC and the 6 territories, the DNC, the RNC, the FEC, the Electoral College, the entire Congress and most American voters there is no doubt what is the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

Considering that even the State Department confirms that there is no definitive definition of natural born citizenship with respect to presidential eligibility, I find your claim moot.

As far as they are concerned, and you see this reflected even in the proposed HR, a natural born citizen is someone born in the US and/or born a US citizen. Why do you want this definition to be narrowed?

The bill is not about “narrow[ing]” the presidential eligibility clause. Rather, it is about enforcing the clause. Please understand: 10,000 laws on the books mean absolutely nothing if they are not enforced.

-Phil

I believe that what Ms. Lines said is true, as she’s spent more time with a copy of the document than I have.

But she couldn’t draw a conclusion from the scanned image. Annenberg Political Fact-Check inspected and photographed the actual document:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Since when is the St. Petersburg times a court record or a legislative record, let alone the authority on a law.

But it’s great for debunking you here on the net.

You Obots have issues reckoning with reality. You’d make lousy lawyers.

Reality is that birthers have a perfect record in court — 100% failure; zero for dozens.