NZ Herald Runs Misleading and Error Filled AAP Article on Obama Eligibility

A few readers emailed me expressing outrage at an AAP article they had read in yesterday’s NZ Herald. Written in the usual subjective pro Obama style, it attempts to cloud issues regarding Obama’s birth certificate and his Constitutional eligibility to be President of The United States. The errors of fact in the report are numerous, but we’ve come to expect nothing less from such politically partisan liars as make up the ranks of journalists today. Example-

Those documents complement newspaper birth announcements published soon after Obama’s August 4, 1961, birth and a “certification of live birth” released by the Obama campaign three years ago, the only type of birth certificate the state issues.

A complete and utter lie. The Certification of Live Birth is an informal document that paraphrases the real birth documents and is attesting only to the subject’s live birth. It does not contain the kind of data found on a long form birth certificate. These, the real long form birth certificates are still issued by the Dept of Health and have been obtained by people born in Hawaii as recently as a few months ago. Another attempt to mislead is thus-

Obama would be able to inspect his birth records if he visited the Health Department in person, but original records of live births are never released, he said.

Of course the originals are not released. Certified copies can be obtained though, as is done the world over. And one could easily be obtained of the original birth certificate if it exists. Another example of deceit-

“It is absolutely clear to me that he was born here in Hawaii,” Fukino said. “It should not be an issue, and I think people need to focus on the other bad things going on in our country and in our state and figure out what we’re going to do about those things.”

A statement that shows the (claimed) Republican Fukino’s complicity in the deceit. It is not up to her, a mere book keeping civil servant, (now retired) to decide such an important issue, or to advise other citizens what is politically important or not. Incredible actually that she would even presume to do this.

This article is an arrogant and blatant attempt to lie and deceive and protect Obama. Here, in a few short paragraphs is all any objective observer needs to know about the Obama eligibility issue.

Presidential Candidates need to be signed off as eligible according to the Constitution in each state. The Democrat Party only signed off on Obama’s constitutional eligibility in Hawaii. In every other state, the sign off form was altered to remove the words that signified eligibility according to the Constitution. The basis of the sign off in Hawaii was the Certification of Live Birth. However this document does not certify the subject’s eligibility as it does not show hospital of birth, signature of delivering doctor, or nationality of parents.

Such COLBs are known to have been given on extremely flimsy evidence such as signed depositions from parents or relatives. Some are known to have been issued to people born overseas. The case against Obama rests upon the flimsy nature of the COLB and the allegation that it originated from false information supplied by his grandparents (or mother) anxious that their grandson should have American citizenship.

The birth notices in local papers too were generated as a normal response to the information supplied by the grandparents and the issue of the COLB. THe COLB does not certify Obama as a Natural Born Citizen. Only the real Birth certificate can do this. Obama was therefore incorrectly signed off as eligible on the Hawaii ballot, the one document that attests to his eligibility.

So there is the case. There is extremely good reason to believe Obama is not eligible to be President. In fact he knows this, and he knows the documentation on file is not sufficient to prove his eligibility either, and that is why he is spending millions in legal fees to prevent the public seeing it.

There is one particularly telling story on this issue. Obama’s grandmother declared she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa Kenya. An outcry erupted in the room immediately after and she quickly corrected herself. She had made a silly mistake. She was present in Hawaii she said. Sure she was. In that day, when air tickets cost a fortune, the impoverished mother Ann Dunham brought an air ticket for Obama’s grandmother and flew her all the way to Hawaii just to witness the birth and then flew her back again. To use a NZ colloquialism, “Yeah right!”

Note: This blog has a considerable resource of material on the Obama eligibility issue. To see all posts, choose “Obama Eligibility” from the Category menu at the top of the right hand side bar.

6 thoughts on “NZ Herald Runs Misleading and Error Filled AAP Article on Obama Eligibility

  1. Red, I’m not sure the BC is the be all and end all on this issue. He might well have been born in Hawaii but hiding the long-form for some other reason.

    Of more interest to me, and I confess I don’t know for sure, is how can a person with dual citizenship be eligible? Surely to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, one cannot be a citizen of the US and some other dominion?


  2. Of more interest to me, and I confess I don’t know for sure, is how can a person with dual citizenship be eligible? Surely to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, one cannot be a citizen of the US and some other dominion?

    See the graphic I just posted. Obama with his contempt for everything that traditional Americans hold dear, is everything the framers were thinking of when they wrote the “Natural Born Citizen” clause into the Constitution.


  3. This is where things get complicated, Red. Although the diagram you refer to is helpful, it must be noted that it is based on some assertions that have not actually been tested. The thing of course is that the constitution was meant to be plain and clear, and that the whole business of “interpreting” it in the SCOTUS, is mainly a progressive invention to find workarounds by creating judicial authority to interpret the language of the document.
    With all these older rules you always have the problem of interpreting them, i.e. should that be done according to terms as they were understood at the time, and how much context can you allow in that interpretation. The progressives of course argue that a constitution is a “living” document, i.e. its interpretation and context must be in keeping with the times and social developments. This is a blueprint for disaster of course and grit on the mill of the socialist, post modernist, word smith, who is always capable of giving every term its opposite meaning, or attaching words with a certain flavor to things that emanate quite the opposite odor.

    In the case of eligibility, the problem is with the “natural born” clause, which is open to interpretation. It is clear that the framers sought to restrict this, and specifically sought to restrict it for the office of POTUS. This is also why there is this transition arrangement for the first presidents. However, the terms of the constitution could have been clearer and arguably even more restrictive (for instance the 14 yr residency clause or the 35 yr age limit, which to us now looks quite young). These things were clearly an aspect of those times, where many of the country’s leaders were relatively recent arrivals, and the average maximum age much lower as it is now.

    The exact meaning of “natural born” must at some point be determined exhaustively, including such curve balls as dual citizenship. If it were up to me, I would include that the candidate must not only be born in the US out of two citizens, but also that he/she ought to have actually lived in the US for a certain percentage of his/her life (say 80%), must have been educated in the US, and must provide an extensive CV and disclosure of all records and documents pertaining to birth, health, education, financial status, membership of any organization etc. The person in the white house must be able to withstand all possible scrutiny before being sworn in. In a transparent system that is purported to be a democracy, nothing less will suffice.


  4. Bez, I am a bit pushed for time right now otherwise I’d give your more info on this but if you search for legal definitions on the issue there have been some cases where it has (allegedly) been decided.


  5. Red, I’ve had some extensive discussions on that with US (leftist) lawyers, and worked through the arguments used in the various cases that almost made it to the SCOTUS. The issue is that this has simply never been sorted at the highest level. There are arguments both ways in lower courts and on more or less comparable matters, but a straight up and down SC decision on what presidential eligibility involves is not available.
    Added to that, in none of the procedures against Obama the matter has actually made it to the discovery stage, which would have forced Obama to disclose. The matter has always been relegated to standing and other procedural issues. We have discussed that before I think.


Comments are closed.