Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> The Right Side of Life

Obama Citizenship

: The Right Side of Life

Certifigate: No ?Long Form? for Obama; DNC Obama Eligibility Cert Only in HI

By Phil

Mr. John Charlton of The Post & Email posted yesterday the following admission on the part of the ColoradoIndependent.com:

Experts have repeated time and again that the documents presented to the country and campaign officials are real and legitimate documents and that a ?long-form certificate? does not exist. [emphasis mine]

On the face of it, this admission would go along with Newsmax.com’s story that I reported on, here, in which the conservative-leaning news site specifically contacted the Hawaii Department of Health regarding the original 1961 documentation.

However, Mr. Joseph Boven, the author of the ColoradoIndependent.com story, did not reveal anything regarding how he came to this conclusion, such as upon what authority made such a claim. And while many like to claim that the blog FactCheck.org supposedly very clearly points out an image of a short-form certification of live birth, I have already reported that they aren’t quite as consistently factual as some in the opposition to eligibility like to claim.

Further, Mr. Boven did not provide any immediately accessible email by which he could be contacted in order for any concerned citizen to follow up with him on this story.

Mr. Charlton’s posting goes on:

The import of this admission is that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in any hospital in Hawaii, since in Hawaii only those not born in hospitals lack the long-form vault certificate given to such children as the Nordyke twins, which can be seen in this article from World Net Daily.

This would leave only 2 possibilities:  either that he was born out of state; or that he was born or claimed to be born at home, and an at-home-birth declaration was made by at least one relative.

If this is the case, Barack Obama has seriously misrepresented his birth story on numerous occasions. [emphases original]

The theory that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in a hospital has at least some direct anecdotal evidence in a posting, here, in that there has been no direct testimony from any witnesses regarding his birth. Further, there is at least one instance of direct, irrefutable evidence whereby the great State of Hawaii — before it was admitted into the Union — officially proclaimed (via strikingly similar language as that of Mr. Obama) China-born Sun Yat-sen was “born in the Hawaiian Islands.”

Yet, the bigger story may only be beginning to unfold, if a certain theory regarding the HI DoH’s recent proclamations regarding Mr. Obama’s birth could, in reality, be an invention of circular logic.

Let’s begin with a follow-up posting by Mr. JB Williams of CanadaFreePress.com entitled, “DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!” (excerpted):

The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama?s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama?s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been ?Snoped ? FactChecked ? blogged and twittered? as ?legal proof? that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.

Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II ? Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama?s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.

This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama?s eligibility?

On September 15, I released a follow up report, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy?II in which I was able to provide answers to many of the questions swirling around the two DNC docs.

• Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
• Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
• Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
• Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
• Different states have different state statutes on the matter
• But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it

…

In short, the answer to Bob Unruh?s question at WND seems to be yes, Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama. But she also knew that this false statement of eligibility would only be filed in Hawaii, which has a very specific state statute that requires that each party certify the constitutional eligibility of their candidates, using specific text.

It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a ?natural born citizen? on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination.

After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB?s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama. …

In all cases except Hawaii, the DNC form without certification of constitutional eligibility was filed by the DNC. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

The following explanations have been offered on the subject.

• Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language
• Other states don?t require certification of constitutionalstanding for office
• The DNC certified Obama during the primary process
• Certification is ?implied?

Obviously, while Hawaii?s statute requires that such language be there in the certification of nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn?t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?

Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.

And, I can?t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between ?implied? and ?certified?? A personal check ?implies? that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a ?certified? check guarantees that you have that money in your account. …

Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!

If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she ?certify? Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii? and she would be telling the truth!

The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.

Now, to be fair, the DNC had been omitting that language from their official filings for years. Refusing to certify their candidates as ?constitutionally eligible? has been a practice of the DNC for at least a few election cycles now. Why?

The Final Questions

1. Why did the DNC certify Obama?s eligibility only in Hawaii?
2. Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
3. Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
4. Without any such certification, isn?t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of ?natural born citizen??
5. Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
6. On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7. Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8. When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?

For more background information on what Mr. Williams is talking about, you can see my posting here. In this referenced posting, you will find my own references to highlighted coverage to what Mr. Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com has researched. Further, a recent article by “jbjd” entitled, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” is similarly helpful in gaining a more thorough understanding of the nomination process — and how to hold the several States to account — for apparently very lax oversight in this process.

Now, here’s where I connect the dots regarding what could be a fantastically shrewd and misleading (to say the least, if true) theory regarding HI DoH Director Dr. Fukino’s recent “natural born citizen” proclamation.

While we already know that not every State in the Union requires specific verbiage stating anything about constitutional eligibility of a given nominee by a major political party, this may not be the point at all with respect to the eligibility question.

But what if Dr. Fukino is merely using the DNC certification of eligibility as the basis for her claims that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?

After all, we know that the Director nor any other State official can reveal personal information regarding any individual’s private documentation. And, in her most recent statement, Dr. Fukino proclaimed that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen based on the documentation they have on file. She couldn’t have said anything about this unless the documentation upon which she bases her proclamation is already public (or risk revealing information in such a fashion as to make it public, by virtue of a public admission on her or her office’s part, thereby carrying potentially very stiff penalties for doing so).

Yet, the DNC certification of eligibility is already public; in fact, blogs such as mine already have it stashed away. Therefore:

Could Dr. Fukino be making her basis on that piece of paper as the rationale for her proclamation?

And, as I’ve repeatedly said before, no political party — as far as anyone has been able to find — is under any obligation to actually vet a candidate; they merely require a self-ascribing document in which the candidate proclaims him or herself to be qualified. The political party operates under no rule or law that requires actual documentation. Not only this, but the Hawaii DoH is similarly under no obligation to otherwise vet what documentation they receive; they’re merely tasked with safely storing and archiving such data.

So, perhaps the real bottom line is this, according to my theory: The HI DoH says that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen based on the DNC’s constitutional certification which is based upon Mr. Obama’s self-ascribed document wherein he states he’s eligible. Therefore, in theory, the DNC and the HI DoH are basing their belief on Mr. Obama’s word, because, thus far, no actual documentation exists to otherwise confirm or deny is eligibility.

And regarding his short-form certification of live birth? Again, we’ve seen an image of this document, and as this posting and blog have clearly shown, we don’t know anything about the documentation to which this COLB points, except for the possible DNC certification paperwork which, at best, is already conclusively shown to be based upon one man’s word.

Could this stuff get any more morbidly fascinating?

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• The background:
  • Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
  • Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
  • Obama Citizenship Facts
  • What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
• The questions:
  • Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com?s Obama Citizenship Admission
  • Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
  • Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
  • Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
  • The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
  • Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on September 26, 2009 (boomark / email).