http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100317/D9EG7MBO0.html "Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy," said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health's Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development. "Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen." So which is it? Is the evidence there or not? Every time I start to think they have this figured out the people running things say something stupid.
It's not exactly confusing In truth, I don't see the confusion. From the article you provided: So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president. Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen. But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday. A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with the same letters seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said. Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate. (Boldface and italic accents added) The issue is that with certain records, one needs a good reason to receive the information. "Because I want it," doesn't suffice. This is why some people have taken to trying to sue for the records, believing that a court order in a lawsuit would be sufficient. Except, of course, that the courts aren't buying into that logic. Thus, the information allegedly exists. The state Health Director issued a statement last year declaring that she has, indeed, seen the original records. No, a conspiracy theory is not a sufficient reason for requesting it. The "lack of evidence" Lorrin Kim refers to is the lack of the original birth certificate in the grubby little hands of every petulant conspiracy theorist who wants it. There really isn't anything confusing about it. ____________________ Notes: Niesse, Mark. "Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama 'birthers'". Associated Press. March 17, 2010. APnews.MyWay.com. March 17, 2010. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100317/D9EG7MBO0.html
And again and again and again! LOL I wonder how much the Birthers have cost the state? Maybe the State of Hawaii should just post a copy of Obama's birth certificate on their state website. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And refer all requests for same to the website. It will not stop the requests, but it might make life easier for state employees and less costly to the state.
Actually, no, Obama's eligibility has not been vetted and further, the questions concerning the matter are not restricted to this single document. McCain's eligibility was vetted, and Congress approved a resolution declaring that he was eligible to be president. The same could be done for Obama. It would stop the lawsuits. Obama's attorney fees to fight these lawsuits are probably much higher than the 10-20 emails each week costs the State of Hawaii; including the costs of enacting this law.
Subtlety The document already provided is sufficient under the law. Otherwise, my daughter, born in Seattle, would not be eligible to serve as president according to the document in the file beside my desk. The question there was whether or not the site in a foreign country where John McCain was born (Panama Canal Zone) was sovereign territory. There is no such question about Hawaii. And, indeed, the McCain question is easily resolved. According to 8 USC 1403(a), John McCain is a natural-born American citizen. The problem with catering to these conspiracy theorists is that it sets a precedent that the government should undertake extraordinary efforts to accommodate people who simply refuse to be persuaded by fact and law. The document Obama provided suffices under law. It doesn't suffice, however, for a bunch of petulant, envious morons looking for a reason to complain. I admit that I do wonder if the president was a haole born to an American mother and a European or Canadian father, if anyone would actually care. ____________________ Notes: Hulse, Carl. "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out". The New York Times. February 28, 2008. NYTimes.com. March 19, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html "Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1403". United States Code. Cornell University Law School. March 19, 2010. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001403----000-.html
I'd just like to point out for posterity that the misuse of the word "prove" is annoying. The records provide strong evidence. They do not PROVE it. The records could feasibly (But doubtfully) have been faked. If the possibility remains that it COULD be faked, it is not PROVEN. That article author needs a Good Dictionary and should reference it. This is why so many people misuse the words "prove," "proven" and "proved."
Actually wrong, Obama was affirmed as president elect by congress on January 8, 2009 and was given the Oath of Office by a very Republican and political chief justice of the supremes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
The article says that such information is restricted to people who have "tangible interests". Unless it's some legitimate action by the government, I don't see that anyone has right to your birth certificate without your permission. The people who keep requesting the information over and over and over need to have a restraining order filed against them or something. If you think Obama was born in Kenya, fine. But that obviously isn't what the information you're getting from the state of Hawaii is saying. Either accept Hawaii's information as fact or decide that they're in on the alleged conspiracy. Either way, the constant badgering is pointless.
Agreed, the Birthers have been thrown out of court and fined for filing frivolous law suits too. But that does not stop them. They just keep coming. I wonder how much this has cost the State of Hawaii.
McCain Birthers were catered to so a precedent was set. Technicalities are raised in both cases. This is one of many examples. New York Times A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html. Therefore, the McCain issue was more complicated than you portray. Many legal scholars said it was a serious question with no clear cut answers, and there was no precedent. If it were obvious, there would have been no need for Congressional resolution. I'm not saying the two cases are alike other than Congress resolving technicalities should any exist. It's not that simple. At least one judge involved in one of the Obama lawsuits (perhaps others, I don't know) opined that the matter should be handled by Congress. Look, I can't and don't speak for Obama Birthers but based on what I've read, they simply want the issue thoroughly vetted. The issue is much broader and more complicated than a simple birth certificate. A number of documents and records could either confirm his Constitutional qualifications or raise questions on possible technicalities which have no precedent. Of course the questions arise from circumstanial evidence, and it seems the unknown is part of what's fueling the theories. The unknown part could easily be removed. The resistance to it is simply irrational. It's been awhile since I read about all the evidence and legalities they are concerned about, and I've no intention of revisiting it. I only remember some of the possibilities such as dual citizenship, Hawaii law at the time, adoption, passport, etc. So if you have any intellectual curiosity of the intricacies beyond the birth certifiate issue, I expect you will seek it out yourself. Personally, I would prefer to continue with a precedent consistent with how the McCain eligibility issue was resolved, rather than one where technicalities inconsistent with Constitutional qualifications may exist. Why not remove the possibility that any technicalities exist where circumstantial evidence suggests the possibility and, if they do exist, resolve them. I feel for the Hawaii state employees who are caught in the middle and have to deal with it. But, creating new laws to deal with citizens requesting documentation is a slippery slope, and could be avoided by eligibility investigation and resolution by Congress. I question the wisdom of now setting a precedent of hearsay as "proof" and nondisclosure of a variety of records and documents, some of which could possibly refute the questions and/or technicalities and not require Congressional or any other action. Either way, why not just settle it. The potential for this precedent to turn around and bite you in the azz is huge.
head vs. wall Interesting. So it seems you're suggesting that the McCain ... er, never mind. As you've stated it, that means absolutely nothing. I'd have to read the transcript, or opinion, or whatever record there is to figure the specific context. Nonetheless, Senator McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station, and until someone demonstrates otherwise, that counts as sovereign American territory, else thousands of parents have rendered their children ineligible for the presidency of the United States of America by the simple fact of serving in our armed forces. I simply cannot imagine the logic that would affirm such an outcome. I should have looked up the hospital before. I damn well knew his father was in the service. This, even more than 8 USC 1403(a), settles the McCain question. And President Obama has satisfied the requirements of the law. That is the way it goes, and a bunch of half-wit conspiracy theorists are going to have to come up with something better than two attempted forgeries and a truckload of ignorant, paranoid egotism before the argument against that fact becomes viable.
Who knows? I have nothing against conspiracy theorists per se, and I even think some conspiracies are interesting to read about. I draw the line, though, when people's obsession with conspiracies start wasting taxpayer money. I'm all for people questioning our "leaders" and government to keep them in line and believe that the actions of the state should be as transparent as possible (without compromising national security). But I don't want taxpayers footing the bill for other people's paranoia.
I think it's pretty clear but I'll reiterate. I was saying that many, including legal scholars, said it wasn't as simple as you portrayed, and I quoted an article about it [see above]. The NYT article also linked to Prof. Chin's paper here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621 That's why I linked the NYT article. To help you understand why it wasn't as cut and dry as all this.
