Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Globalist cover-up hiding Obama's past?

It's the title of Mychal Massie's article that came out today. A short exerpt from it....

"Joan Swirsky writes that Douglas Hagmann, in an interview with Dr. Laurie Roth, revealed, "The reason for the media blackout about [Obama's] birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media, issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations, but also from Federal Communication Commission officials. According to Hagmann and [his investigative partner] Judi McCleod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously," threats were made to fire major talk-show hosts if they mentioned Obama's birth certificate, threats were made by FCC officials to yank broadcasting licenses, and memos were circulated by corporate TV headquarters to all on-air employees advising them not to mention the birth-certificate issue, his lawyer's license or his college records. ("Who is behind quashing the birth-certificate issue?"; Aug. 26, 2009; RenewAmerica.com)"

I invite you to read for yourself, Mr Massie's hypothesis as to why MASSIVE amounts of information concerning Obama' past have not been released to the public and as to why " Barack Obama has spent (or had spent for him) between $1.8 million and $3.2 million in legal fees to keep his personal records secret. These include his birth certificate, his college records and all else that could provide more insight into his past". I'm not prepared to state that I share Massie's reasons as to why there is little in the way of documentation on Obama's background. But it is quite interesting when you consider that there are entire YEARS missing on this guy's resume.


30 comments:

Tracy said...

JD, I gotta tell you that I adore you but I'm not so sure about this article.

As I read the article I found myself asking, how Massie came to know that Obama spent between "$1.8 million and $3.2 million in legal fees to keep his personal records secrets"? I also wondered what would be worth cover up in a birth certificate? These only state date and location of birth and names of parents.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "but I'm not so sure about this article."

You are right to be suspicious because (1) Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth that he posted and showed to Polifact and FactCheck is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.

(2) The allegations that Obama spent anything on hiding his original birth certificate are all false because there has never been one lawsuit that asked for his birth certificate. All the lawsuits before the election (by far most of them) were to stop the election. Most of the lawsuits after the election were to stop the certification of the election or to stop the Inauguration. The remaining lawsuits include demands for Obama's kindergarten records and college housing records.

JD Curtis said...

Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth that he posted and showed to Polifact and FactCheck is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.

Demonstrably false. The Certification of Live Birth does NOTHING to dismiss the allegations that Obama was not born in Hawaii. When you looked into this matter yourself smrstrauss, exactly how many ways did you find that people could obtain Hawaiian COLB's in the 1960's? I came up with 4 different ways and I would ask you list how many you are aware of if you bothered to investigate the matter at all.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "I came up with 4 different ways and I would ask you list how many you are aware of if you bothered to investigate the matter at all."

Baloney. All ways that required any form of delay must be excluded because the publication in the newspapers (which by the way were notices by the government of Hawaii for births in Hawaii and not for births outside of Hawaii) date the time of birth. Thus a certificate of Hawaiian birth or delayed birth or a revised certificate are ALL excluded. And, in 1996 there was no provision for filing a foreign birth certificate, so the birth certificate must be from Hawaii).

In addition, there is this witness who recalls being told of the birth in 1961 and writing about it to her father. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html). The two officials who certified the facts on the document have too much to lose to lie about it (they are officials in a Republican governor's administration after all).

Neither his Kenyan grandmother, nor anyone else, ever said that he was born in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be clearly heard if you listen to the complete recording of the tape, which is on Berg’s site. The complete recording includes a question asking “Whereabouts was he born?” And her answer was: “America, Hawaii.”

Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3)

If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf).

There have been NO official documents from Kenya (numerous forgeries, however) that say that Obama was born in Kenya, and the only organization to have claimed that there are documents “sealed” in Kenya is WND. Its reports have not been confirmed by anyone. (And it would be easy to confirm because all you have to do is to find out if there are files which area sealed). There are hundreds of journalists in Kenya, and the fact that there were sealed files would be news.

Moreover, IF a child had been born in Kenya and subsequently came to the USA, there would be US documents showing that the trip took place. That is because if a child were born in Kenya, she or he would have to have either a US visa on a British passport or be issued its own US passport while in Kenya. IF either of those took place, there would still be US records in the US embassy in Kenya and in the US State Department in Washington, and they would have been found by now, and they have NOT been found.

All the allegations of Obama’s birth abroad were checked out by the McCain campaign, and they found that there were no facts. No facts at all. (http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors)

It is strange to believe that Obama’s mother even left Hawaii during pregnancy. Pregnant women rarely traveled long distances in 1961 because of the fear of stillbirths. Moreover, in 1961, to travel to Africa required a Yellow Fever shot, which is very bad during pregnancy.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "1996"

That should read 1961 of course. Obama was born in 1961, which was more than twenty years before foreign births could be registered in Hawaii.

JD Curtis said...

Tracy, I'm not sure where that statistic is from. I've heard it before though. I'll try to get an answer because I would like to know myself.

JD Curtis said...

"Instead of the birth certificate on file at the Hawaii Dept of Health, the Obama campaign posted on the Daily Kos blog and the Fightthesmears website a “Certification of Live Birth”. The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. And there is the problem. 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. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?" Link

JD Curtis said...

From the above cited article....

"No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth."

" In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)"

smrstrauss said...

Re: "In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed."

Say that you are right. I have information that said that even when a child was born without a midwife or doctor Hawaii still required some form of witness in order to get a birth certificate THAT SAID BORN IN HAWAII. You might have been able to get a birth certificate, but not one that said "born in Hawaii."

But, say that you are right. In order for this to be of any use, Obama would have had to have been born in Kenya. But it is crazy to believe that he was born in Kenya. There were no direct flights from Hawaii, so the pregnant mother would have had to go half way around the world via either London or Tokyo, with about six stops along the way. And she would have had to have a Yellow Fever shot. All that to give birth in Kenya?

IF she went to Kenya, which is crazy, but if she did, she would have had some photographs with the relatives, and sent some to the relatives, and there would be a record of her arriving in Kenya, which would easily have been found, or there would have had to have been a US travel document such as a visa or a passport issued in Kenya for the child to travel to Hawaii, and this would have been found.

The grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya, she said that he was born in Hawaii.

Moreover, this witness indicates that Obama was born at a hospital, probably K. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

Re the birth certificate not being the original and instead being a computer-generated document. Yes. BUT it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the only one that Hawaii sends out (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

Quite a few states now use short-form birth certificates as their official birth certificate. In Hawaii's case, the short-form birth certificate follows the State Department format for official birth certificates and is accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA for issuing passports.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?"

The COLB is the official birth certificate. AND, no president before Obama has shown any birth certificate. Moreover, I have checked and ALL the departments in Hawaii (including DHHL) accept the certification of live birth as proof of birth in Hawaii.

JD Curtis said...

You missed the part where, until very recently, the COLB wasnt sufficient to prove one was born in Hawaii by their own standards.

Re the birth certificate not being the original and instead being a computer-generated document. Yes. BUT it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the only one that Hawaii sends out

Again, demonstrably false. Here is a copy of the long form certificate obtained by a person in Hawaii who was born one day after the claimed birthdate of Obama and in the 2nd hospital now claimed to be the hospital of his birth. The First was Queens Medical Center but it is my understanding that he is now saying it was Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital and that is the most recent version of events put out by the Obama camp. Link.

While there is no contraversy whatsoever that George W Bush was born at the Grace Community Hospital in New Haven and Bill Clinton was born at the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Arkansas, why is there confusion as to which hospital Obama was born in? It's a pretty simple, straightforward question.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Again, demonstrably false. Here is a copy of the long form certificate obtained by a person in Hawaii who was born one day after the claimed birthdate of Obama and in the 2nd hospital now claimed to be the hospital of his birth."

Yes there were original birth certificates. Some people have them because their families saved them. That is how you have the document you posted. But it was not sent out recently.

Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original. It sends out only the Certification (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

Re the hospital. Obama has always said Kapiolani. One newsagency got it wrong and has since corrected it.

This witness seems to confirm that it was Kapiolani because the doctor she quotes worked there (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

Re: "While there is no contraversy whatsoever that George W Bush was born at the Grace Community Hospital in New Haven"

Sure there is controversy. He hasn't proven that he was born at that hospital. There's no document. Where are the doctors and nurses who witnessed his birth? He didn't even post a birth certificate.

In contrast, Obama has posted the official birth certificate, and the facts on it were confirmed by the officials, and there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "until very recently, the COLB wasnt sufficient to prove one was born in Hawaii by their own standards.'

Who told you this? It is wrong. One agency, DHHL, said that it preferred the original (which some people have because they saved it from the time of birth). The original includes details about racial background that the short-form does not include. But what about people who have lost the original? Hawaii sends out only the short form, so what do they do? I asked DHHL about this, and they replied that they accept the short form as proof of birth in Hawii (like all the other departments). If the original is not available, they accept the short-form as a starting point and try to find out more information from other documents.

But, they, like the US State Department, accept the Certification of Live Birth as proof of birth in Hawaii and in the United States.

JD Curtis said...

"until very recently, the COLB wasnt sufficient to prove one was born in Hawaii by their own standards."

Who told you this? It is wrong.

Ask and you shall receive......

"Posted: July 08, 2009....Is Hawaii self-conscious about its unusual "certification of live birth" document because of attention focused on it over questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency?

The state, which had excluded the controversial document as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it stating in its qualifications that they are now accepted "because they are official government records documenting an individual's birth."

It was just one month ago that WND pointed out that the document Barack Obama has released as proof of a Hawaiian birth was not accepted by the Hawaiian Home Lands program, presumably because it was not a reliable test of an actual Hawaiian birth.

WND previously reported certifications of live birth were widely issued to Hawaiians born in foreign countries in 1961, the year Obama was born. No federal or state official has ever explained why a document issued for foreign births could possibly be used to establish eligibility as a "natural born citizen.""

Here's the link to the above, cited article. There are relevant links on the above article's main body.

Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original. It sends out only the Certification

Do you mean to tell me that the president cannot ask the state to release the document, (even partially REDACTED for crying out loud)in order to settle this matter once and for all? Does he enjoy the contraversy? Whatever happened to all of the "transparency" from this administration?

JD Curtis said...

Re the hospital. Obama has always said Kapiolani. One newsagency got it wrong and has since corrected it.

It would appear to be more than just a single news agency. Others that got it wrong....

1)Snopes.com

2)United Press International

3)The Rainbow Edition Newsletter

4)The MyBarackObama.com campaign website (How could THEY get it wrong?)

5)William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress

6)Kenya's East African Standard

7)Obama's OWN SISTER, Maya Soetoro couldnt be trusted to disseminate the most favored version of his birth (twice).

smrstrauss said...

Re the single newsagency. Yes, all of them are quoting the incorrect report by UPI, which has since corrected it. Obama himself has never said Queens.

As for the sister, that also was UPI quoting the sister.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "president cannot ask the state to release the document, (even partially REDACTED for crying out loud)in order to settle this matter once and for all?"

You mean you suggest that the president of the United States use his influence on Hawaii to get something that other people do not get? And, you mean you want him to do it when it is unnecessary?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "WND pointed out that the document Barack Obama has released as proof of a Hawaiian birth was not accepted by the Hawaiian Home Lands program."

WND is hardly the most impartial or accurate of news agencies. In fact, the program that they refer to never said that it did not accept the official birth certificate. It only said that it preferred the original. This is hardly surprising since it needed to establish Hawaiian racial identity.

Some people do have their original birth certificates, which their families have saved from the time of birth. Others, like Obama, have lost the originals. What happens in this program when the person who wants to apply has lost the original? I asked the department about that.

They replied that (1) They always accepted the COLB as proof of birth in Hawaii (like all the other departments in Hawaii and the US State Department); and (2) they recognize that some people cannot supply the original birth certificate because it has been lost, so in that case they accept the COLB as a starting point and try to find other documents to prove the Hawaiian racial background of the applicant.

Since Obama has never needed to prove his Hawaiian racial origins, this does not apply. The only thing that does apply is the fact that the COLB is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by all the departments and by the US State Department for issuing passports. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Hawaii-born people have used the COLB to get passports.

WND got it wrong, like UPI did.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "WND previously reported certifications of live birth were widely issued to Hawaiians born in foreign countries in 1961, the year Obama was born."

WND again. Not true. The law that allowed foreign births to be registered in Hawaii was not passed until 1982, more than twenty years after Obama was born.

JD Curtis said...

Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original. It sends out only the Certification

Do you mean that there is no way at all to obtain a copy of the long form at all? If so, could you please provide the source of this information?

You mean you suggest that the president of the United States use his influence on Hawaii to get something that other people do not get? And, you mean you want him to do it when it is unnecessary?

I could not imagine any state witholding information on my vital statistics. I would find an attorney and sue if I had to. In order to substantiate your claim, could you please post a link to the official statement by the state of Hawaii that forbids citizens from obtaining copies of their long form certificates under any circumstances whatsoever, and that it is completely impossible to do so?

I would like to address some of your other points tomorrow.

JD Curtis said...

Oh, and I didnt want this gem to get by.....

WND is hardly the most impartial or accurate of news agencies.

So WHAT?! This reminds me of a certain ex-senator who was leading a double-life named John Edwards. Who was it that broke that story?

A. The NY Times
B. The LA Times or
C. The National Inquirer

Let this discussion stand on it's own merits. In the end, none of that which I have stated here conclusively means that Obama was foriegn born. But then again, you havent supplied a single shred of evidence from official state of Hawaii documents as to which hospital he was born in and who the attending physician was. None.

JD Curtis said...

Oh, and Tracy, I think that I found a partial answer to your question concerning the payment of millions of dollars to law firms to keep the lid on any personal information on Obama.

And, according to campaign finance reports, his Political Action Committee Obama for America has paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009 to fight every legal challenge requesting proof of his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Link

Now let me ask you something smrstrauss. Why does Obama pay out this money to attorneys to fight the release of the one document that can put this entire issue to rest? This guy is offering a $100,000
reward to prove that Obama is eligible. Why doesnt Obama just obtain a copy of long-form certificategive it to his brother George who lives in squalor in Kenya and let him collect the reward?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Why does Obama pay out this money to attorneys to fight the release of the one document that can put this entire issue to rest?"

There has never been a lawsuit against Obama that simply asked for the birth certificate. The cases are not for the birth certificate. They are to stop or prevent Obama from being president.

Before the election all the cases (about three quarters of all the cases, and about the same 3/4 of money spent probably) were to stop the election. After the election, most of the cases were to stop the Electoral College or stop the certification of the election.

The few remaining cases ask for numerous things including Obama's kindergarten records, his academic records, records of his being adopted (which he cannot supply since he was never adopted) and all allege that even if he were proven to be born in Hawaii, he still would not be eligible because his father was not a citizen.

So these cases also are not about the Birth Certificate. Obama fights the cases because no one should have the right to force a president to reveal his kindergarten records, academic records, etc. You may disagree, but it is impossible to say that the sole reason for fighting these cases was to hide his birth certificate.

In fact, he has shown his birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth that he has posted and shown to FactCheck and Polifact is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth document that Hawaii currently sends out. (So, if Obama lost the copy of the original sent to his parents--which is very likely, all that he CAN show is the document that Hawaii sent to him.)

As the Wall Street Journal concluded: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.

The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.

The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility."

(And the latter assumes that the president CAN get and then release the original birth certificate, which I have said is in doubt. Hawaii says that it no longer sends out copies of the original.)

smrstrauss said...

Do you mean that there is no way at all to obtain a copy of the long form at all? If so, could you please provide the source of this information?

(http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

smrstrauss said...

Re WND. This is the organization that said that t he governor of Hawaii had sealed the files in Hawaii, and she said that she did not do any such thing. In fact, the files in Hawaii were and remain private, and are no more private now than they ever were.

smrstrauss said...

Do you mean that there is no way at all to obtain a copy of the long form at all?

I provided a link, but I did not think clearly before I did. The way to obtain a copy of the long form is TO CHANGE THE LAW or the regulations, or both if necessary.

This has actually been proposed in Hawaii by a Democratic legislator. When I pointed this out to some birthers on another site, I got an unusual reaction. They said (as the Wall Street Journal predicted that they would say), that the only reason that Democrats are proposing a change in the law to allow the birth certificate to be seen is because, they claim, Obama has now created a "perfect forgery" that he has slipped into the file.

Remember what the WSJ said: "They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well." And so they did.

The Democrat legislators (and I presume the Republicans too, why not?) think that it is perfectly fine to change the law or whatever to show the original birth certificate because the original birth certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the two officials, the notices in the newspaper, and the witness who recalls being told of his birth all said.

So why not do it? I'd be delighted. But, until then, the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate and the facts on it have been confirmed, and that is sufficient.

JD Curtis said...

The Certification of Live Birth that he has posted and shown to FactCheck and Polifact is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth document that Hawaii currently sends out. (So, if Obama lost the copy of the original sent to his parents--which is very likely, all that he CAN show is the document that Hawaii sent to him.)

smrstrauss, when author Jerome Corsi petitioned the state of Hawaii for a copy of Obama's long form certificate, what was the reason his request was rejected? It wasnt because they don't give them out. When you have the answer, please post it here.

Obama fights the cases because no one should have the right to force a president to reveal his kindergarten records, academic records, etc.

That's an interesting theory you have. Did Obama tell you that himself? Is it your belief that nowhere along the line that Obama had to prove his citizenship? Insofar as his college days, did Obama receive assistance that foreign students get? Do you see where this is going? The release of one document would end all discussion on the matter.

Further more, the article you cite from the Star Bulletin to support your hypothesis that people cannot in any way obtain their own long form certificate isnt what I was referring to. I would like to see the official state of Hawaii announcement telling it's current and former citizens that there is no way humanly possible for them to obtain the original copy of their own birth records thus opening themselves up to a lawsuit. Not a newspaper clipping.

I don't know if the COLB posted by Obama's website is a fake or not. I'm not a document expert. I don't propose that it is a fake though.

The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved.

This is speculation on your behalf and nothing more. We really won't know until he releases his long form certificate. Much like we are "speculating" that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Leo B. VadalĂ  said...

I may have missed this somewhere so please forgive me for coming late to the game, but I wonder if the Kenyan newspaper, The Sunday Standard ever retracted its headline from June 27, 2004 about "Kenyan Born Obama"?

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

smrstrauss said...

Re: "when author Jerome Corsi petitioned the state of Hawaii for a copy of Obama's long form certificate, what was the reason his request was rejected? It wasnt because they don't give them out. When you have the answer, please post it here."

Corsi was not a relative or on the list of persons entitled, so they wouldn't send him ANYTHING. They wouldn't send the COLB; they wouldn't send the original. They wouldn't send him anything.

In addition to this, Hawaii does not send out copies of the original to anyone anymore. In this it is not alone. Other states are doing the same thing. (http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/hrj-34-requires-missouri-candidates-to-submit-non-existent-long-forms/)

I am unable to find the original press release that said that Hawaii was no longer issuing the long-form. I have both Hawaii's statements to me in e-mails (which I failed to keep sorry) and the newspaper article I cited. In addition, I have seen some articles saying that there were legislators who wanted to change the policy to make the birth certificate available. It would be illogical for them to seek to change the policy if that wasn't the policy at all.

And there is this:

Thursday, November 06, 2008
Barack Obama: Born in Hawai`i
By Andrew Walden :: 3911 Views

A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama’s upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama’s numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.

Obama’s birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement. (Correction: Both papers printed an identical list of birth announcements supplied to them by the Hawaii State Department of Health.)"

So we have an article quoting the officials in Hawaii saying that that they only send out the COLB, and e-mails to me confirming it, and we have the article above that says that everyone gets the COLB.

Re: "That's an interesting theory you have. Did Obama tell you that himself? Is it your belief that nowhere along the line that Obama had to prove his citizenship? Insofar as his college days, did Obama receive assistance that foreign students get?"

You said that he fought the cases to keep documents secret. I showed that by far most of the cases were NOT about documents and the remaining cases can be about privacy.

As for Obama receiving foreign student aid. Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia, as this document from the US State Department shows: (http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6)

JD Curtis said...

smrstrauss,

Either admit that you CAN obtain your own (or relative's) long-form certificate or take your argumentive nonsense elsewhere. Link