Hawaii Officials Now Say Obama Birth Certificate Was Thrown Away in 2001
How could this be possible? Hawaiian government officials said they had personally seen and verified Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate in 2008 when this issue first came up.
Found at the LA Times
Reporting from New York — CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate — a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air — is a “dead” story.
But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
“He’s got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as various stories evolve,” Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a mix of news and opinion.
“Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes,” he added.
That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama’s long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported.
“It seems to definitively answer the question,” Klein wrote in the e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. “Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead — because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.”
On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story.
“When I use the word ‘seems,’ that’s an open invitation to disagree,” he said. “Other people may have a different point of view about that, and they’re welcome to offer it, because I don’t think as management you ever want to be closed down to discussions about editorial issues.”
“I have written directives in the past,” he added, “and believe me, there would be no mistaking a directive from me.”
Klein said he did not hear from Dobbs in response to the e-mail. The host, who raised many of the questions about Obama’s birth on his radio program, was on the air Friday afternoon after press deadline and could not be reached for comment.
On Friday, the Southern Poverty Law Center called on CNN to fire Dobbs for trading in “racist conspiracy theories.” And some of Dobbs’ staff at CNN have told him and network executives that they are uncomfortable with his persistent focus on the story.
Klein defended Dobbs, saying that the host’s treatment of the so-called “birther” movement has been “legitimate.”
Dobbs pushed his producers to run another segment on the story July 17, a day he was off the air, that would feature two figures behind the Obama alien-birth campaign.
His staff went ahead with the piece, but they wrote a script that called the rumors of the president’s foreign birth “the discredited rumor that won’t go away.”
In the introduction, guest host Kitty Pilgrim shut down questions about the story, saying: “CNN has fully investigated the issue, found no basis for the questions about the president’s birthplace, but the controversy lives on.”
On his show Thursday, Dobbs did note the explanation from Hawaiian officials, as Klein suggested in his e-mail. But he went on to devote another full segment to the topic.
In it, Dobbs stressed that he has said repeatedly that he believes Obama is a citizen, something that he said his critics in the “left-wing media” ignore. But he continued to press the question of why Obama has not shown a long-form birth certificate.
“When this could be dispelled so quickly, and simply by producing it, why not do it?” he asked.
Related posts:
- Hawaii Attorney General’s Office Refuses to Corroborate Obama’s Birth Certificate
- Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate
- New Obama Birth Certificate Posted
- I Just KO’d an Obama-bot (O-bot) on the Birth Certificate Issue
- 2008 NYT Article Questions John McCains Birth Certificate
Sign up to receive our FREE daily newsletter containing all new posts!
“House Dem Putting GOPers On The Spot By Introducing Measure Describing Hawaii As Obama’s Birthplace”
–
Sneaky, Sneaky.
#Any one see this:
House Dem Putting GOPers On The Spot By Introducing Measure Describing Hawaii As Obama’s Birthplace
Free Republic…www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2302228/posts
Monday, July 27, 2009 1:48:07 PM · by dogbyte12 ·Okay, this is getting really good. Dem Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii is going to introduce a resolution on the House floor today that seems designed to put House GOPers who are flirting with birtherism in a jam.
The measure Abercrombie will introduce commemorates the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. But here’s the rub, his spokesman tells me: It describes Hawaii as Barack Obama’s birthplace.
“In the language of the resolution, there is a statement that Hawaii is the birthplace of the 44th President of the United States,” Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert confirms.
That confronts House GOPers with a choice: They can vote for the measure, and endorse the idea that Obama was born in Hawaii, which could earn the wrath of birthers. Or they can vote against commemorating the 50th state’s joining of our blessed Union. Or GOPers can skip the vote, but that could look nutty.
(Excerpt) Read more at theplumline.whorunsgov.com …
Nancy
You failed to comprehend my response. I responded to this nonsense in the O-bot thread. Please keep future correspondence there.
Re: “But what evidence is there that they barred US-born children of foreigners from becoming president?””
Once again, you show your ignorance. A naturalized citizen is completely different than a natural born citizen.
Of course a Naturalized citizen is different from a Natural Born Citizen. A Naturalized citizen is barred. The question is what is a Natural Born Citizen. Does it require two US citizens to make a Natural Born Citizen, or is it merely birth in the USA?
Obama, who has never hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen, has been elected, and confirmed by the Congress and sworn in. All the people involved, voters, congress, the Chief Justice who did the swearing in, all knew that Obama’s father was not a US citizen.
This large group believes that it does not require two US parents to be a Natural Born Citizen because Natural Born Citizen stems from Natural Born Subject, which was the law in the colonies before the Revolution, and a Natural Born Subject simply was someone who was born in the colony regardless of the number of parents who were subjects at the time.
“You too say the same stuff over and over. In this case, where you originally discuss the assertion that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and I show the proof, you come back with a reference to an article you wrote that claims that Obama would not be a Natural Born Citizen even if he were born in Hawaii.”
—
Are you really that delusional? I never once claimed I knew where he was born. The only thing I have ever said to anyone is I don’t know and there is to many unanswered questions for any rational thinking person not to be suspicious.
—
“First, the facts that demonstrate that he was born in Hawaii are overwhelming. Show something that proves that he was born somewhere else. His grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. There are no documents showing he was born in Kenya. Yet your original post revolves around claims that Obama was born outside of the country.”
Do you always make shit up? I absolutely never claimed that I had evidence that could prove Obama was born in Kenya.
–
“Moving on to the Constitutional issue of whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Hawaii despite the fact that his father was not a US citizen. You cite the Minor case, but the Minor case was overcome by the Wong case, which said simply that a Natural Born Citizen is a synonym for a Natural Born Subject.”
Now you’re just lying.
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States sometime between 1868 and 1873. When he was born, his parents were Chinese immigrants and were permanent legal residents of the United States; but they were not U.S. citizens. In the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a U.S. citizen, even though his parents were not.
The Wong Kim Ark case does not apply to Obama’s eligibility because the SCOTUS only ruled that he was a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Ark’s job didn’t require him to be a natural born citizen. In order to be president one must be a natural born citizen.
—
“And what was a Natural Born Subject? In the colonies before the Revolution it was simply someone who was born in the colony, regardless of the number of parents who were already subjects.”
Thankfully we are sovereign citizens in America and not subjects anymore. Your point is moot considering you point above this one was a lie. I could take the time to refute it, but like I said, it’s a moot point.
—
“And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)”
You think I really give a crap what a any member of our fascist Congress says? You are sadly mistaken if you think you’re going to out-point me using a left vs. right argument.
—
“They could, of course, be wrong. But I ask you whether there are five votes on the Supreme Court for the “two US parent” definition, or if instead the majority–and probably a lot more than the majority–are for the born in the USA definition. Among the conservative justices most are strict constructionists, which means that unless the Constitution actually says “two parents,” they would not vote for the “two parent” theory. Others are “originalists,” meaning that they know the history of the Constitution, and hence know that “Natural Born Citizen” stems from Natural Born Subject.”
I don’t need you to educate me on the Constitution. It is apparent that you could use a refresher course that I would be happy to provide to you for a nominal fee. You even suggesting that we have a single strict constitutionalist or an originalist is comical. We haven’t had a SCOTUS justice that adheres to the true meaning of the Constitution for nearly 100 years. We’re talking about the same SCOTUS that has twisted everything around to the point where peoples right to a fair trial under the jurisdiction of common law has been Orwellian style shape-shifted into statutory and administrative law, both of which are unconstitutional. Not to mention, the complete and utter warping of the General Welfare Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, etc, etc. You know exactly what I’m talking about but you are a lawyer yourself, so you benefit from being able to manipulate people and subvert peoples natural rights.
–
“And two of the Conservative justices had fathers who were at one time Italian citizens. It is possible that the fathers became naturalized before giving birth to the sons. Still the sons might ask: “I have friends whose fathers were naturalized after they were born–does that make them less loyal US citizens than I? Should they not be eligible to be president?” And then they would ask: “The writers of the constitution barred foreigners from being president, and they barred naturalized US citizens from being president. But what evidence is there that they barred US-born children of foreigners from becoming president?””
Once again, you show your ignorance. A naturalized citizen is completely different than a natural born citizen.
—
So you want facts, huh?
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The 14th Amendment was enacted at a time when citizenship was, to some extent, managed and controlled by individual states. Each state had its own citizenship laws. Anyone who became a citizen of a state immediately and automatically became a citizen of the United States.
The 14th Amendment defined a certain class of people, which we call the “14th Amendment Citizen” (14AC) class. This 14AC class consists of every person who is both (a) born or naturalized in the United States, and (b) subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth or naturalization.
The 14th Amendment required every state to accept, as a citizen, anyone belonging to the 14AC class. Each state could grant or deny citizenship to non-14AC people. But the 14th Amendment prohibited any state from denying citizenship to 14AC-class members.
Even though the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment only mentions citizens and never mentions natural born citizens, Obama apologists, or O-bots like yourself argue that the 14th Amendment implicitly redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who meets two requirements:
* born in the United States, and
* subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth.
Here’s your argument: Obama was born in Hawaii, which was, in 1961, a part of the United States. Therefore he met the first requirement. His mother was a U.S. citizen; and his father, though not a U.S. citizen, was nevertheless in the United States legally. Since both of his parents were subject to U.S. law, Obama himself was under U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth. Consequently the President meets both requirements of natural born citizenship, as redefined by the 14th Amendment.
This “14th Amendment natural born citizen” argument depends heavily on the meaning of “jurisdiction.”
During the debates over the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. (What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means)
In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized… (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)
Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That’s why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.
For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement.
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
—-
For the record, it disgusts me that my tax dollars are paying for you to look for websites questioning Obama’s eligibility and pass off your bullshit propaganda. How do you think our SCOTUS justices would rule on the Constitutional merit of your actions?
You too say the same stuff over and over. In this case, where you originally discuss the assertion that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and I show the proof, you come back with a reference to an article you wrote that claims that Obama would not be a Natural Born Citizen even if he were born in Hawaii.
First, the facts that demonstrate that he was born in Hawaii are overwhelming. Show something that proves that he was born somewhere else. His grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. There are no documents showing he was born in Kenya. Yet your original post revolves around claims that Obama was born outside of the country.
Moving on to the Constitutional issue of whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Hawaii despite the fact that his father was not a US citizen. You cite the Minor case, but the Minor case was overcome by the Wong case, which said simply that a Natural Born Citizen is a synonym for a Natural Born Subject.
And what was a Natural Born Subject? In the colonies before the Revolution it was simply someone who was born in the colony, regardless of the number of parents who were already subjects.
And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
They could, of course, be wrong. But I ask you whether there are five votes on the Supreme Court for the “two US parent” definition, or if instead the majority–and probably a lot more than the majority–are for the born in the USA definition. Among the conservative justices most are strict constructionists, which means that unless the Constitution actually says “two parents,” they would not vote for the “two parent” theory. Others are “originalists,” meaning that they know the history of the Constitution, and hence know that “Natural Born Citizen” stems from Natural Born Subject.
And two of the Conservative justices had fathers who were at one time Italian citizens. It is possible that the fathers became naturalized before giving birth to the sons. Still the sons might ask: “I have friends whose fathers were naturalized after they were born–does that make them less loyal US citizens than I? Should they not be eligible to be president?” And then they would ask: “The writers of the constitution barred foreigners from being president, and they barred naturalized US citizens from being president. But what evidence is there that they barred US-born children of foreigners from becoming president?”
NO evidence.
smrstrauss.
I googled you name and found that you spend A LOT of time saying the same stuff over and over again. Are you being paid for your time? I can’t imagine this topic is the only thing on the internet you would be posting about.
smrstrauss,
You obviously haven’t done much research. Not only is much of what you say incorrect, you aren’t even familiar with the other cases that agree Obama was born in Hawaii.
http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/
There is plenty of proof that Obama was born in Hawaii and no proof whatsoever that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.
As you probably know, no president has shown proof of citizenship before Obama. Not one has shown a birth certificate to the public or, in fact, at all. Some would not have been able to show proof because their birth documents were lost. The usual response of the birthers to this fact is that no president before had had his place of birth questioned.
This is true, but it is only the birthers who question his place of birth, and they do so without the slightest proof that Obama was born anywhere else. Indeed, they often deliberately twist the truth, and sometimes they lie.
The claim that Obama was born in Kenya is absurd. His Kenyan grandmother did not say that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in HAWAII. Listen to the complete tape, and you can hear her say “America, Hawaii” right after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3
If it is too difficult to follow the tape, here is the complete transcript of that call. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf
And, not only was the story that the grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya made up, so was the allegation that other relatives said it (nothing has been published) and that there are birth files in Kenya that have been sealed by the Kenyan government (no confirmation from any agency other that WND that there are any files or that any files are sealed). And the claim that Obama had to have an Indonesian passport to go to Pakistan in 1981 was made up too. Pakistan was not on a no-travel list and it did not keep US citizens out. It welcomed them. The allegation that Obama was an Indonesian citizen was also made up, and it has been denied by both Indonesia and the US State Department.
But it is the Kenyan story that is key to this myth. If he were born there, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen, to be sure. But he was NOT born there.
There is no evidence that Obama’s mother ever went to Kenya much less given birth there. IF she had given birth in Kenya, there would have to be Kenyan documents AND US government documents. To get Obama from Kenya to Hawaii (where we know that he was seen a few weeks after his birth) requires some kind of travel document. Most likely that would have been a British passport issued in Kenya with a USA entrance visa on that passport. Or, less likely, his mother’s US passport could have been changed while in Kenya to include Obama and thus let him travel to the USA.
But either of those documents would have required records in the US State Department files. Files of applications for a visa or for a change to the passport. Those files would still be in the State Department, which was under the Republicans for years before the election and for three months after it. Yet nothing has been found.
And there would be Kenyan documents. If Obama were born in Kenya he would have an Kenyan birth certificate. It is claimed that Kenya sealed those files, but this has never been confirmed, and in a country with rampant corruption, if there had been any files, then for a certain sum of $$$$ they could have been unsealed.
So there is not the slightest proof that Obama was born in Kenya, and the idea that his mother even went to Kenya when she was pregnant is laughable. You had to have a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa in those days, which is really bad during pregnancy.
The myth that Obama was born in Kenya was all made up. But, despite this fact, the birthers say that ” Truth is Obama has not shown proof of citizenship.”
The truth is that the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming.
First, there is the legal proof of the Certification of Live Birth, which Obama has posted on line and shown to BOTH FactCheck and Polifact, and which the officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent to him. (At this point birthers usually say “Factcheck is a liberal organization.” But it is absurd to believe that both FactCheck and Polifact could make up the comments by the officials in Hawaii or forge the Certification that is shown in great detail on FactCheck’s site.)
The Certification of Live Birth is not the original birth certificate, but it is THE official birth certificate of Hawaii now, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. (http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html)
The next allegation by the birthers is that Hawaii’s certification is also issued to people who were born outside of Hawaii. Yes, this is true, but this was not the case in 1961. When Obama was born in 1961, only Hawaii-issued birth certificates could be filed in Hawaii birth certificate files. (And even today, when a child is born outside of Hawaii and receives a Hawaii birth document, that document cannot lie, so if the kid were born in Mexico, the document would read like this: “Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. Location of Birth: Mexico.”
But Obama’s birth certificate says on it: “Location of Birth: Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Could the original birth certificate in the file be a delayed birth certificate or a certification of Hawaiian birth? No because both of those require substantial delays, of several months to a year. Yet we know from the notices posted in the newspapers on the weekend after Obama’s birth (notices that were sent out by the Hawaii government and were NOT advertisements) that there was no delay in registering Obama’s birth. The newspaper notices are themselves proof. They are identical notices in both of the major newspapers of Hawaii, and they were sent out by the Department of Vital Statistics ONLY for births in Hawaii, and not for births outside of Hawaii.
Then, in addition to the proof of the Certification itself, and the confirmation that the Department sent a certification to Obama, and the notices in the newspaper, there occurred the confirmation of the two officials who looked into the file and said that there was an original birth certificate in the file. Since Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates to be filed in 1961, and it cannot be a delayed or Hawaiian certificate because there was no delay, the original birth certificate in the file can only be a Hawaiian birth certificate. And this was confirmed in a press interview (supplemented by the same thing in writing in an e-mail) which was done by the spokeswoman for the Department of Health of Hawaii and quoted by the Chicago Tribune (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)
And in addition to all that official proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, there is this witness who confirms hearing about the birth to a woman called Stanley at the time, and writing about it to her father, who also was called Stanley. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)
Against this overwhelming amount of official and witness evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, birthers raise such things as the allegation that Obama’s sister said that he was born at a different hospital (not true, she was misquoted) or that the hospital cannot confirm (because that is the law. It cannot divulge patient information). Or, it is often said that if there were an original birth certificate, then Obama would have shown it. But, as shown in (http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html), which was cited before, Hawaii now sends out only the Certification of Live Birth.
This being the case, unless Obama has a copy of the original and not lost it (and many of us do lose our birth certificate) then all that he can show is the document that Hawaii sent him, which was the certification of live birth. Still, there is nothing wrong with that. It is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by the US State Department for issuing passports.