Hannity promotes birtherism

[ydoaPs]

In this video from MARCH 25, 2011, Hannity repeatedly claims that the birth certificate has never been shown. And here I thought this was settled years ago. Sure enough, it was settled way back in 2008.

 

You can even see the official scanned copy here:

 

So, why do people keep claiming that the birth certificate has never been shown? Why do so many people actually believe it and/or that he was born in another country? In an age where fact checks are so easy, it's amazing to me that this absurdity isn't immediately exposed and those purporting it ridiculed.

Edited March 28, 2011 by ydoaPs

[swansont]

fact checks are so easy

 

Fact checks? What's that?

[jackson33]

A "Birth Certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth" are entirely different instruments, HOWEVER both are legal for proving Citizenship, under law in ALL of today's 50 States and territories. The problem Obama has and which ever Hospital he has claimed birth in, is that they have acknowledged the existence of a long form, normally produced after birth in all States/Hospitals and long before 1961, but the Hospital has refused to release that form without the consent of Mr. Obama and he has refused consent.

 

In South Texas, where I've lived most of my life, many in the same period 1960's/1970's, people born previously or at the time were born in home, some with registered mid wife's and many more with out, both Hispanic and the so called Whites, in order to collect SS or other welfare many agencies required the form and people were granted the "Certificates of Live Birth" practically on their word. I see no reason, why Hawaii having just become a State, would do less.

 

Of course this issue, has again come to light over Donald Trump's comments, not necessarily Hannity, a presumed 2012 Presidential Republican Candidate. As I wrote many times during the 2007-8 Campaign, the issue itself is a non issue with the majority of Americans. They have no knowledge or understanding of the reasons why the founders even established the requirement and more importantly, don't care. Of course the reasoning was that one person, should have the fullest understanding possible, for what being an American should be from childhood to at least age 35, culturally and traditionally. Then as now Americans were and are from many places on the planet, with many diverse views of Social/Legal acceptance other than traditionally American and would vote accordingly.

[Marat]

In a certain sense you could argue that given the Founders' intentions, Obama certainly qualifies as someone who was shaped by American culture from a very early age on up to the present regardless of where he was born. As always happens in law, there are many ways to get to a given conclusion. For example, what is meant by the constitutional requirement of being born in the United States? Is the nation estopped from later denying that someone is an American if it ever issues a Certificate of Live Birth in the United States to someone, since he relies on that official assurance to his detriment in shaping his life plans forever after? No one objected to McCain running for President, but he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was not 'part' of the United States in the sense that the authors of the Constitution ever would have understood or recognized, since they hardly contemplated that the United States would ever claim jurisdiction over foreign colonies. Many historians argue that President Chester Allan Arthur, whose family frequently moved back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border around the time he was born, was actually born in Canada, and that this fact was disguised by his birth being deliberately confused with the birth of his brother, but does any of this really matter? The point has to be that Arther, McCain, and Obama were/are all essentially American by culture and loyalty, and that at a certain point elaborate fussing about dates and borders becomes irrelevant to the substantive issue.

[swansont]

The requirement is not that one be born in the US, it is that one be a natural-born citizen, i.e. not a citizen by later naturalization. I think that wording confuses some. The founding fathers were influenced by seeing the effects of marriages that tied monarchies together, or tried to (including George III, the reigning monarch at the time of the revolution), and wished to avoid similar entanglements that might come about by electing someone of a differing nationality. One might argue it's part of the separation of powers, since the Senate has the power of treaties.

[jackson33]

Marat, McCain was born in Panama and under a 1903 Panama Act qualified as an American Natural Born Citizen, long before he was born. His qualifications however were investigated by a House Committee, prior to the election and Obama's, were not. Much of the Constitution has been altered/changed, as directed in that Constitution, over the years, what emotions drove the founders, they knew would change over time...

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/582683/despite_being_born_in_panama_is_john.html

 

 

 

The point has to be that Arther, McCain, and Obama were/are all essentially American by culture and loyalty, and that at a certain point elaborate fussing about dates and borders becomes irrelevant to the substantive issue.[/Quote]

 

Not really, but the point is fraudulent declaration of qualifications, the qualification being "born in the US". In this case Obama might also be a British subject by birth, if not born in Hawaii and remains somewhat questionable, since his Dad was a British subject (1961) creating a duel citizenship for his child and not permittable.

 

By the way Arthur, became President after Garfield's death, serving out his term, I don't think he ever qualified for any ballot, in his lifetime. Again by today's standards, born to an American born Mother (Irish Father), whether in Canada or Vermont, would have been classified Natural Born American. I would suggest that, that would have been the Legislatures duty in those day's to disqualify (not certify) Garfield's VP pick.

[ydoaPs]

A "Birth Certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth" are entirely different instruments, HOWEVER both are legal for proving Citizenship, under law in ALL of today's 50 States and territories.

No, they're not. At least in Hawaii. If they're not, then NO ONE born in Hawaii has a "Birth Certificate."

 

The problem Obama has and which ever Hospital he has claimed birth in, is that they have acknowledged the existence of a long form, normally produced after birth in all States/Hospitals and long before 1961, but the Hospital has refused to release that form without the consent of Mr. Obama and he has refused consent.

State law, dude.

[jackson33]

Granted, I don't specifically know how Hawaii distinguishes between Hospital Births and those registering a birth of someone, but there must be a means. If not however, that would simply mean Obama was probably NOT born in a Hospital or for some possibly embarrassing entry, has refused to allow his long form from being released or there is none. Anyway, no Hospital or State can deny you from your own health records, for countless reasons...

 

Certificate Of Live Birth Hawaii;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1961_Hawaii_Certificate_Of_Live_Birth.jpg

 

 

Primary Documents

 

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual's birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person's birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth. [/Quote]

 

 

 

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_certification_of_live_birth_the_same_thing_as_a_birth_certificate_in_Hawaii#ixzz1HvfHgZrv

 

According to the above then, your said birth Certificate, is a simple "Certification" and I' seriously doubt, when a Mother/Child leave a Hospital, it's with THAT...

[swansont]

Now that I think about it, the 14th amendment probably clouds the issue, because it defines a citizen as either being born in the US or being naturalized, which raises the issue of what it means to be born in the US, and if naturalization at birth (by statute) is the same thing as a natural-born citizen.

 

Marat, McCain was born in Panama and under a 1903 Panama Act qualified as an American Natural Born Citizen, long before he was born. His qualifications however were investigated by a House Committee, prior to the election and Obama's, were not. Much of the Constitution has been altered/changed, as directed in that Constitution, over the years, what emotions drove the founders, they knew would change over time...

 

Do you have a link for the 1903 act, and the House committee that investigated this? Because while I was Googling I ran across this article http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship which claims that the citizenship of those born in the canal zone were granted citizenship retroactive to 1903, but since the law was passed in 1937, McCain was not a citizen at the time of his birth. Also, there was something on the topic written into the Congressional Record, and a Senate resolution declaring him to be a natural born citizen, but I would think it would have been an issue for the courts to decide. Congress can't simply declare something to be Constitutional.

 

I don't know if the arguments in the link hold up, but it's certainly interesting.

[ydoaPs]

Congress can't simply declare something to be Constitutional.

 

Sure they can; all they have to do is make it an amendment.

[jackson33]

Do you have a link for the 1903 act, and the House committee that investigated this? Because while I was Googling I ran across this article http://www.michiganl...-of-citizenship which claims that the citizenship of those born in the canal zone were granted citizenship retroactive to 1903, but since the law was passed in 1937, McCain was not a citizen at the time of his birth. Also, there was something on the topic written into the Congressional Record, and a Senate resolution declaring him to be a natural born citizen, but I would think it would have been an issue for the courts to decide. Congress can't simply declare something to be Constitutional.

 

I don't know if the arguments in the link hold up, but it's certainly interesting. [/Quote]

 

 

Any concern over whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was eligible to run for president was put to rest Wednesday in the U.S. Senate.

 

The Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency, is eligible.In February, The New York Times called into question the legality of McCains presidential run, based on whether he is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution. McCain was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American citizens.[/Quote]

 

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2008/5/2/us-senate-ends-mccain-citizenship-debate/

 

During U.S. control of the Canal Zone, the territory, apart from the canal itself, was used mainly for military purposes; however, approximately 3,000 American civilians (called "Zonians") made up the core of permanent residents. U.S. military usage ended when the zone was returned to Panamanian control. It has now been integrated into the economic development of Panama, and is a tourist destination of sorts, especially for visiting cruise ships.

 

Notable people born in the Panama Canal Zone include Richard Prince, Kenneth Bancroft Clark, Rod Carew, and John McCain, the Republican 2008 presidential candidate and US Senator from Arizona.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

 

swansont; Whether retroactive or from, is not the point. McCain born 1936, was covered and the point, IMO. What your link infers and is possible, is in that period of time McCain was born, was not covered in the 1937 law. I doubt, it would hold up in court, since McCain's parents hadn't left Panama and gone back, remainong covered while there.

 

As you mentioned Citizenship Laws are in part tied to the 14th A, which as most amendments can be altered/changed by Congress at will, by legislation or law. A resolution is not law, but certainly would stand as setting precedence...

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

 

ydoaPs; Congress can only propose an amendment...which in turn must be ratified by 3/4th's the States. There are three such proposed Amendments still active (one expired) that have never been ratified and our 27th A, proposed as one of the "Bill of Rights" was very recently ratified. Source being the same as the above.

Edited March 29, 2011 by jackson33

[waitforufo]

A "Birth Certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth" are entirely different instruments, HOWEVER both are legal for proving Citizenship, under law in ALL of today's 50 States and territories.

 

There is no doubt that Obama has every legal right to be president based on his certificate of live birth. But this other document, this birth certificate, does indeed exist. There is no doubt that it does. I'm sure the President signs lots of documents every day. Why not sign the document that releases this birth certificate? What could possibly be the harm? Why not put this fringe group at ease?

 

Make one wonder what exactly is written on that birth certificate document. Why not end the speculation?

[jackson33]

There is no doubt that Obama has every legal right to be president based on his certificate of live birth. But this other document, this birth certificate, does indeed exist. There is no doubt that it

does. I'm sure the President signs lots of documents every day. Why not sign the document that releases this birth certificate? What could possibly be the harm? Why not put this fringe group at ease?

 

Make one wonder what exactly is written on that birth certificate document. Why not end the speculation?[/Quote]

 

waitforufo; I think/hope you understand, that's exactly what Trump, Hannity, myself and many others are trying to suggest, just release his records for there historical value and be done with it, there going to come to light over time anyway.

 

This said, I do have some opinions from the political strategist side of my mind; Obama, during the campaign used a great deal of "reverse psychology" on the electorate. In nearly every campaign speech he used the phrase "and did I mention...he's black" with various lead in's which in reality no one was using...

 

 

Many Americans, regardless of race, qualifications or anything admirable will vote for the "underdog" and Obama played that card well. While he might have stopped the "birther's" in their tracks, then was allowed to run it's course. I'd also suggest, even for the coming election in 2012, it's a great fund raising ploy and is already being used...

[ydoaPs]

But this other document, this birth certificate, does indeed exist. There is no doubt that it does.

No, it doesn't. He was born in Hawaii; they don't do "Birth Certificate"s.

 

waitforufo; I think/hope you understand, that's exactly what Trump, Hannity, myself and many others are trying to suggest, just release his records for there historical value and be done with it, there going to come to light over time anyway.

It's been done. I even hotlinked the official scan in the OP.

[swansont]

swansont; Whether retroactive or from, is not the point. McCain born 1936, was covered and the point, IMO. What your link infers and is possible, is in that period of time McCain was born, was not covered in the 1937 law. I doubt, it would hold up in court, since McCain's parents hadn't left Panama and gone back, remainong covered while there.

 

I think it's precisely the point. If the information is correct, McCain was not a citizen when he was born. Citizenship was granted to him some time afterward and since it's a constitutional question it would really be for a court to decide the issue, regardless of the existence of a senate resolution. The court may very well decide that he is a natural born citizen; I don't know the legal arguments involved and I'm not a lawyer. But fixing a loophole is not the same as saying the loophole never existed. If all it takes is a law and a senate resolution, what would stop the government from passing a law granting citizenship to all Austrian-born actors, retroactive to whenever, and then passing a resolution saying that Aaaahnold is a natural-born citizen?

[jackson33]

No, it doesn't. He was born in Hawaii; they don't do "Birth Certificate"s.[/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; yes they do...again;

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Live_Birth.jpg

 

What was released to the public is a "Certification", in other words a unsubstantiated statement that he was born in Hawaii.

 

It's been done. I even hotlinked the official scan in the OP. [/Quote]

 

Then what reason is there not to release everything, other than spending millions to prevent that release????

 

I really don't want to defend birthers, it's not my objective here and believe any further discussion only enhances Obama's 2012 re-election changes. However I can get two of my kids, a Wisconsin BC, based on newspaper reports in a Wisconsin Newspaper the week after they were born (I placed having had lived there), though were born in Texas. Speaking of Texas, hundreds of people, if not thousands WITH Texas Certificates of births, can't even get a passport, to travel between Mexico/Texas, simply because they were NOT born in a Hospital, having only a certificate of birth from Texas. Think 7 States to date are working on requiring proof of Citizenship for Presidential Candidates, so his best bet would be to reveal the real BC, before the elections.

 

Listen to the short video report on the following link;

 

 

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate[/Quote]

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833

 

 

 

 

 

"I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]."

 

At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children across town. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.

"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."

 

To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation that Obama was born at its facility.[/Quote]

 

 

Read more: Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=165041#ixzz1I1KKznqs

[Marat]

An interesting question to ask is how far the issuance of a certificate of live birth by the state of Hawaii could go to constituting Obama as a natural-born American citizen even if that was not in fact the case. In many cases, the law holds that the government is estopped from denying the truth or validity of a document it issues to someone or a promise it makes to someone if that person acted reasonably on that document or promise to his detriment. In this case, since Obama obviously relied on the government's assurance that he was a natural-born citizen in going through all the elaborate efforts required to become President, if the birther movement were seriously to challenge his status he could argue that the state now lacks authority to deny the validity of what it formerly said was true.

 

If this were just a matter of private law, Obama's rights in this case would be clear. But since it is a matter of constitutional law, the estoppel/reliance argument might be challenged on the principle that the constitution's intention to deny the Presidency to anyone not a natural-born citizen must prevail.

[jackson33]

Sorry swansont, guess we cross posted and I didn't see yours...Anyway and as said, there might be a point of argument in your link, but since McCain is a war hero, so to speak and had been cleared by Congress to run in the elections, I seriously doubt anyone would have tried it. Aside from that, McCain was seen as the easiest to beat and any such effort would have put the light on Obama's citizenship problem...Funny thing is, when there was talk on allowing Arnold to run for President, it was Obama's crowed pushing the issue in Illinois, often linked by people like me, to his citizenship.

 

 

If this were just a matter of private law, Obama's rights in this case would be clear. But since it is a matter of constitutional law, the estoppel/reliance argument might be challenged on the principle that the constitution's intention to deny the Presidency to anyone not a natural-born citizen must prevail. [/Quote]

 

Marat, I hope my agreeing with you twice in one day, doesn't ruin your reputation, but anything attacking the foundation of American Law (Constitution), will always get my attention. Those founders had reasons and IMO, those reasons are being played out today...

[Mr Skeptic]

Sorry swansont, guess we cross posted and I didn't see yours...Anyway and as said, there might be a point of argument in your link, but since McCain is a war hero, so to speak and had been cleared by Congress to run in the elections, I seriously doubt anyone would have tried it. Aside from that, McCain was seen as the easiest to beat and any such effort would have put the light on Obama's citizenship problem...Funny thing is, when there was talk on allowing Arnold to run for President, it was Obama's crowed pushing the issue in Illinois, often linked by people like me, to his citizenship.

 

Obama as President is bound by oath to defend the Constitution, whether he likes it or not.

[insane_alien]

you know what?

 

Obama IS president, whether illegally or not, AND he isn't running the country into the ground, the people of the US voted for him so THE PEOPLE WANT him to be president.

 

Ultimately, that is what a democracy is, the people elect who they want if sufficient people(lets say 90%) wanted an immigrant to be president(I grant you this is an unlikely scenario) they could easily ask and get congress to repeal the rules saying the president must be a natural born citizen.

 

thats the point of a democracy. It is all mutable depending on the will of the people.

[waitforufo]

you know what?

 

Obama IS president, whether illegally or not, AND he isn't running the country into the ground, the people of the US voted for him so THE PEOPLE WANT him to be president.

 

Ultimately, that is what a democracy is, the people elect who they want if sufficient people(lets say 90%) wanted an immigrant to be president(I grant you this is an unlikely scenario) they could easily ask and get congress to repeal the rules saying the president must be a natural born citizen.

 

thats the point of a democracy. It is all mutable depending on the will of the people.

 

With exception to your comment about running the country into the ground, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

As president however, Mr. Obama represents all the people. Even those curious about his birth documents. Why not put their concerns to rest. Their request to view his birth documents is trivial. This would all come to an end if the President sent his family friend the Governor of Hawaii a letter giving the Governor permission to publicly release all state held document relating to his birth. It wouldn't take him any more time than it took me to write this post.

 

By not doing so, one has to assume that he has something to hide, or he enjoys the attention paid to this issue.

[insane_alien]

With exception to your comment about running the country into the ground, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

really? the US isn't exactly in the situation of Zimbabwe or Libya you know. I'd say its not doing too badly.

 

As president however, Mr. Obama represents all the people. Even those curious about his birth documents. Why not put their concerns to rest. Their request to view his birth documents is trivial. This would all come to an end if the President sent his family friend the Governor of Hawaii a letter giving the Governor permission to publicly release all state held document relating to his birth. It wouldn't take him any more time than it took me to write this post.

 

look at the OP that is a birth certificate. this is like me saying the sky is blue while showing you the sky and you saying 'show me the sky and then i'll believe you while your staring right at it.

 

By not doing so, one has to assume that he has something to hide, or he enjoys the attention paid to this issue.

 

except he isn't as he has shown all documents pertaining to his birth.

 

If he were to retroactively create a modern document he would be criticised for that. All we have are the documents required by law at the time of his birth and they have been publicly released for all to see.

 

why are you ignoring the facts?

[jackson33]

Obama as President is bound by oath to defend the Constitution, whether he likes it or not.[/Quote]

 

WOW Skeptic, are you ever leaving me an open door to run through, but I doubt any one President has ever really tried to defend every part of the Constitution or the accepted meaning established under law, so I won't run through that door....

 

Obama IS president, whether illegally or not, AND he isn't running the country into the ground, the people of the US voted for him so THE PEOPLE WANT him to be president.[/Quote]

 

insane; If illegally, no that's not true. We still have a Constitution and legal system, that is if a majority feels something needs changed, it's not necessarily possible. It takes 2/3rds of both Houses (Presidents approval NOT needed) to propose an amendment, to even be sent to the States and 3/4th's the States to then Ratify for anything to change the Constitution's meaning. If it were found Obama had deliberately lied about his citizenship qualification (I'm not saying he did), Congress by their Oath would be forced to Impeach (charge) and Convict (removal from office) the man. This would be a technical question, but if one State in the 2012 Election required back up evidence (proof) of citizenship and was refused that information, it would probably be the end of his campaign. "Running the Country into the ground", no one person can do this, but many people would suggest, he hasn't helped the situation. A 4T$ 2 year increase in National Debt, doubling our annual interest to 400B$, currently somewhere over 100T$ in unfunded National obligations, a stagnant GDP and Federal income, High Unemployment (24 months near or over 9%), upward of 17% actual and a loss in international confidence in the American Dollar, along with a decrease in that value, might indicate something else. Did most people vote for Obama or did some of that most vote against McCain, you might be surprized.