Your contentions are flawed:
"The sole documentary evidence provided by Obama of his birth in Hawaii is a Certification of Live Birth, or C.O.L.B., which is a computer-printout document subject to tampering."
Untrue. There are two Obama birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers dating within a week of his birth. How do you explain their existence?
"Worse, at the time of Obama's birth, the state of Hawaii willingly issued such documents to people born outside Hawaii. How in the world can a document issued to people born outside Hawaii be used as proof that a person was born in Hawaii?"
Two problems with your assertion.
First, Hawaii had no such law until 1982. Therefore, the fact that Obama was issue a certificate number as of August 8, 1961 is pretty clear evidence that the State of Hawaii was convinced at that time that he was born in Hawaii.
Second, pretending that Hawaii did issue birth certificates to foreign-born persons in 1961, such a birth certificate would state the foreign location of that person's birth. No one has ever shown one single example of a person born outside of Hawaii obtaining a birth certificate, original or copy, that incorrectly states he or she was born in Hawaii. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.
"As for Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which details the attending obstetrician's name and the hospital's name, as well as the date, time, and location of the birth -- that elusive document has never seen the light of day. Obama has not released it on the Internet. Congress has never laid eyes on it."
This is a fascinating criticism, given that then-Senator Obama was the very first major party presidential candidate to ever publicly release images of documentation of his birth. But when Obama gives an unprecedented inch, his critics want a mile.
""By the way, a CNN poll conducted in August, 2010, revealed that only forty-two percent of Americans believe that Obama "definitely" was born in the United States."
How many of those people polled recognize that the place of one's birth may affect his eligibility to be president? We don't know, and I imagine that would change the
responses a lot.
Untrue. There are two Obama birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers dating within a week of his birth. How do you explain their existence?
The issuance of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.) automatically generated the newspaper birth announcements. If a C.O.L.B. fails as proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen, then announcements based upon information taken from the C.O.L.B. fail as conclusive evidence, as well.
First, Hawaii had no such law until 1982. Therefore, the fact that Obama was issued a certificate number as of August 8, 1961 is pretty clear evidence that the State of Hawaii was convinced at that time that he was born in Hawaii.
Inaccurate. According to Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily: In 1961, Hawaiian law specifically allowed "an adult or the legal parents of a minor child" to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given a birth document in the form of a Certification of Live Birth.
The only requirement stated in Hawaiian law is "that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
So there's no way under the sun that possession of a C.O.L.B. constitutes proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen, which is the item in contention.
Second, pretending that Hawaii did issue birth certificates to foreign-born persons in 1961, such a birth certificate would state the foreign location of that person's birth. No one has ever shown one single example of a person born outside of Hawaii obtaining a birth certificate, original or copy, that incorrectly states he or she was born in Hawaii. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.
There's no pretending involved, except perhaps on your part. Since no one has seen Obama's actual long-form birth certificate, and since we have had for our examination nothing more than a computer-generated document with less information than the longer, more comprehensive birth certificate, I'm unclear as to what point I'm supposed to glean from this. The key information that you're ignoring is that Obama's full birth certificate remains hidden. You've never laid eyes on it. Neither have I. And neither has Congress or the media. In fact, a congressional document released on the Internet admitted that no official vetting process occured regarding Obama's eligibility.
This is a fascinating criticism, given that then-Senator Obama was the very first major party presidential candidate to ever publicly release images of documentation of his birth. But when Obama gives an unprecedented inch, his critics want a mile.
What fascinates me is your evasion of the point being made. The C.O.L.B. is not the same document as the Certificate of Live Birth. It is a shorter document with less information included. For example, it does not include the attending physician's name, and it omits the birth hospital's name. In addition, the Hawaii Department of Health "refused to authenticate either of the two versions" of President Obama's C.O.L.B. images online -- "neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org."
The burden of proof lies with Obama -- not with me, you, Congress, the media, or election or state officials. So far, it is a burden that he has refused to meet, with the complicity of most media outlets, and Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment