Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Certificate

I believe men landed on the moon.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in shooting JFK.

I do not believe that the Bilderburgers or the CFR or any other international body (and certainly not "the Joooooosssss" control world affairs.

I KNOW that Muslim radicals flew planes into the WTC, and that it was NOT the work of the U.S. government, and particularly not George W. Bush.

And for a long time I believed there was nothing to this business of where Barack Obama was born. Now, I'm not so sure.

In the past two weeks, there has been a veritable blizzard of screeching diatribes against the so-called "birthers," namely those who question Obama's citizenship. What's amazing is that half of these howls have come from people on the "right," such as Debra Saunders and Ann Coulter. There is an old, WW II maxim for bomber pilots: "When you start seeing flak, you're over the target." Based on the amount of "flak" that this issue is suddenly generating, I'd say maybe there's a target there.

Not long ago Lou Dobbs of CNN (!, yes, CNN!), while not explicitly endorsing the issue, had on guests who were actually allowed to raise it. This birth certificate issue is so toxic that mainstream shows---even on Fox---refuse to touch it. Many conservatives are afraid of being labeled kooks. (That didn't seem to bother Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in the campaign. True, neither got many votes, but you never questioned where they stood!) But this is not a kooky issue.

Do I think Obama was born in the U.S.? Honestly, I don't know. But what troubles me is that it is so damn easy to prove it, and that Obama has not done that: get the original, paper copy and display it. The confusions by the "deniers" on this are remarkable: they say it has been verified, but some critics say that this "verification" took place after Hawaiian officials claim the records "were destroyed." Then there is the issue of the "Certificate of Live Birth" vs. a "birth certificate," and it appears you can be a non-citizen and get the former. Then there is the matter of the passport. Supposedly, Pakistan was on a no-go list when Obama went there; other officials say that's not true, that it was never on such a list. But what NONE of them have done is to produce Obama's passport!!!

Now, folks, this is real simple. I'm sitting next to my desk drawers. On one side I can pull out my passport in 5 seconds. On the other, I can produce a physical version of my birth certificate in the same amount of time. I have not spent $1 million dollars trying to hide either, as Obama has.

So let me repeat: I'm not a "birther" yet. But I am a thinking person with a skeptical mind and, for something so easy to lay to rest, I find it deeply troubling that Obama has chosen to skirt the issue as he has. And to you conservatives who think this is a "problem" for our side, it's only a problem because of the constitutional chaos the REALITY of a foreign birth could cause . . . and ya'll know what I'm talking about. We'd have to get rid of the guy who is in there (an impeached Obama would become a martyr), we'd get that utter buffoon Joe Biden, we'd have to determine the legality of every single law or executive order this Marxist has signed. It would be a nightmare---and I suspect this, more than anything, is really why many conservatives don't want to "go there." But sometimes, you have to do what needs to be done.

The "birthers" are getting lots of flak. Does that mean they are near a target?

************ADDENDUM: Ok, I did some quick, but pretty detailed, investigation into this. I asked some direct questions and got some direct answers, some of which came from this site:

I'm sure many of you have seen this before, but there is the upshot of this long and detailed analysis:
*There actually IS a clear difference between a "Certification of Live Birth" and an official "Birth Certificate." Using the former, you cannot get a passport, among other things. (Now, the terms Birth Certificate 3 and Birth Certificate 4 are from the Western Journalism Center, and not government terms.)
*According to the site, a "Birth Certificate 3" form involves the folling: "In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” In other words, a government official of some sort can issue this based on the statement of a family member up to one year after the fact and can even be issued on the word of one of the grandparents, and the mother or father do not have to be present (!)
*But . . . a "Birth Certificate 4" type can be issued if "a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.
*So Western Journalism Center concludes the certificate in question is either a BC3 or, if forged, BC4. Why would anyone think it might be forged? Because there was no internet in 1961, so there is no digital file. Therefore, "Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth in Hawaii or parentage."


  1. I'm with you, Larry, about all of the whack-o conspiracy theory acusations of the past... but I am somewhat bothered by the O'Bama birth certificate controversy. Every liberal source is ready to take current evidence and dismiss any questions... while conservative critics keep presenting valid points that are never addressed. Any one of us could produce our own birth certificate in less than 24 hours, answer any questions, and put it behind us... without it costing MILLIONS of dollars.

  2. Welcome aboard Dr Schweikart. Even if you're only hanging on to the handrail while the birth train races towards the District of Corruption. This issue is so easy to resolve. The ramifications of a foreign born American president and the corrective measures required to fix are indeed scary. However, the process of exposing the truth is necessary in order to the maintain the sanctity of our Constitution.

  3. If there is nothing to hide, then why hide. We can not see his college records. His history is questioned and it would be so darn easy just to bring forward the records....The real records.
    I realize that if he is not a American born president, that this means there were forces that helped hide the truth. Also I know that if and when it is proven that he isn't a born citizen, there will be a racial war the size we have never seen before. Sometimes I get the feeling that there is a sinister and dark plan that we seem to be following.

  4. My personal belief is that there is something to hide. I also believe that this issue is best left alone because I am certain that the Obama people have ensured that it is impossible of proof. It is also very dangerous to tamper with the results of a free election.

    I detest Obama and the Statist ideology that he stands for. But the way to attack him is through the political and electoral process--and we must do that, relentlessly. The time to question his eligibility was before the election, not now.

  5. OK, well, I have since found some great stuff, almost certainly stuff you guys have already looked at. I'll edit above.

  6. What I can never figure out is WHY the media isn't running this story day and night...were any other man in his position be questioned on his legitimacy as a candidate, the headline scene would be much different today.

    Something I thought you may find funny - my professor in Interpersonal Communications said yesterday, "I try to watch a lot of news to keep myself in touch with what's going on out there. Sometimes I even put on Fox News so I can get their wacko slant." I had to bite my tongue, one more class and ABD, so I'm in suck up mode, but gee whiz, I had so much to share at that moment.

    Great piece,

  7. I think the biggest problem with the so-called "birthers" getting any respect is that they keep citing the WRONG reason for us to be concerned about this missing birth certificate issue.

    As was pointed out by knowledgeable conservatives when Democrats first made similar claims about McCain's eligibility to be POTUS, ancestry trumps geography. In other words as long as even ONE of your parents was a natural born citizen of the United States, eligible to be POTUS, then YOU are a natural born citizen of the United States, eligible to be POTUS, whether you were born in the Canal Zone, Kenya, or on Mars.

    So since eligibility to be POTUS is NOT in question, why the games by Obama?

    I can think of only 3 reasons:

    1. Incompetence.
    2. Boob bait for the bubba's.
    3. To cover up something else.

    I can believe 1 given this administration's level of incompetence on everything else, and they are certainly the kind of people who'd TRY 2 as a discrediting distraction from what they are REALLY up to. (As for whether they could pull something like that off, see 1.)

    However, the most intriguing possibility is 3. Forget POTUS eligibility, Obama's mother's citizenship trumps that. The real question is what ELSE, what OTHER secret reason would explain a reluctance to be honest about place of birth?

    Personally, I was intrigued by the possibility that Obama might have illegally taken advantage of some state set asides for native-born Hawaiians before that was (partially?) exposed as a hoax.

    IMHO THAT is where to concentrate: upon why ELSE Obama would have a motive for lying about the circumstances of his birth because there does appear to be SOMETHING going on there.

  8. Why would the grandparents'placing a birth notice be any kind of a proof of birth? Their daughter could have been in Hawaii, Las Vegas, Ishpeming, or Kenya and their announcing the birth of a new grandson is not proof of anything.

  9. Yes, welcome to reason.

    You can also look at the issue of "natural born citizen" and how it is DIFFERENT from "citizen" and "naturalized citizen". They are different. The Constitution is specific for a very good reason. The loyalty of the President of the US should be undivided for a reason.

    All the 'birthers' wanted all along was for people to acknowledge specifics in these two issues and discuss facts. The Obama force has been very successful at confusing people, but they cannot distract from the facts forever.