I have a birth certificate from NY. It is from 1949 and lists the hospital, doctor, parents has a state seal, etc. It was provided to us in a plastic laminate with a blue back. It is the only birth certificate I ever had. Three years ago I had to renew my passport. They would not accept my birth certificate. They did not like the laminate.

I had to request a new one from NY over the web. I paid my money and got a nice certificate with a state seal on it. No doctor, hospital, etc. But good enough to get a passport.

Stop trying to derail the electoral process using manufactured issues. Lets get on with the work of rebuilding this country.

Texas law (Election Code Sec 192.031) limits presidential nominations by political parties to qualified candidates:

PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

It would be a reasonable extension of this law to require documentation of said qualifications.

Alternatively, a State could require that the actual presidential candidate file for office. An application for a presidential candidate would have signatures and documentation of qualification for the presidential and vice presidential candidates, and the presidential candidate.

In the case of party candidates the application would also include the signature of a party official. For independent candidates, a petition signed by individual citizens or voters.

Please read the posts above. Obama could easily produce his certified birth certificate, which the State of Hawaii has announced they are holding. Obama needs to fill out a form, send in $10.00 and he could produce a certified copy of what Hawaii is holding. This form would include the name of the hospital, doctors and witnesses. Again, read pages 7-11:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20Aina%20Hoopulapula.pdf

The newspapers announcements would be secondary evidence that could then be used to confirm the birth stated in the certified copy of the birth certificate.

As in the DHLL land program cited above which does not accept the Certification of Live Birth, the document Obama produced does not contain any verifiable facts to prove he was born in Hawaii. Just like this DHLL program additional evidence is required to make the determination if Obama is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to hold the office of the President.

Once Obama produces the $10.00 certified copy of the long form or birth certificate (which as noted above is available to Obama for $10.00) the hospital can be contacted, the doctors contacted and the witnesses can be contacted. Secondary evidence such as this and the newspapers articles would then support the birth in Hawaii.

After Hawaii became a State in 1958 it was riff with immigration fraud. Anyone could register a baby a year after the birth with no collaborating evidence. Those laws were changed in 1972, but people familiar with the laws know that there could be a foreign birth certificate for Obama that the State of Hawaii is holding.

There is the possibility that Obama’s parents brought Obama back from overseas and registered his birth in Hawaii. That is what they did with his half sister who was born in Indonesia. His sister could produce an identical short form abstract or Certification of Live Birth, the only difference would be her name on it. Would that prove she was born in Hawaii?

If Obama’s certified copy of the birth certificate names a hospital, doctors and witnesses that will lead to verification he was born in Hawaii.

If the birth certificate says he was born at home, in a taxi or anywhere but a hospital it will likely mean that he was born overseas and his parents brought him back to register him. It would also raise the question of why Obama would lie about what is contained on his birth certificate.

Obama and the Democratic Parties failure to respond to this issue is a slap in the face to the Constitution and the American people. They should have resolved this issue before the election to avoid the prospect of an ineligible President. The issue and lawsuits are not going away and it is being driven by this refusal to produce a $10.00 birth certificate. Obama and the DNC had since at least last February to resolve this. Obama’s only response was to produce a worthless document to pro-Obama websites. There has been no statement from the Democratic party saying they have received all of these records and Obama has been through a vetting process. Zip, nothing. The silence from the Democratic party on this issue is more than disturbing.

The facts are very simple:

1. One and only one document exists in this case; that is the Certification of Live Birth that clearly states under Place of Birth -Honolulu. Now some of you want to concoct a scenario in which a very pregnant teen mother flies halfway around the world to a third-world country, gives birth, then rushes back with her newborn the next day, just to register the birth, because she somehow felt her baby would grow up to be President. Is this possible? Sure, in the sense that if I flip a coin 20 times it’s possible that all will come up heads. But I wouldn’t bet my money on it.

Regardless, courts don’t deal in possiblilities, they deal in facts. And right now, Obama’s certificate is the ONLY fact in this case.

2. Even if your wacko scenario occured, it is by no means clear cut whether or not being born to a US citizen in Kenya would render Obama a natural-born citizen. There are simply no court rulings either way.

3. Of the 43 former Presidents, which ones meet the standards of proof you demand of Obama? Can you PROVE they were not born in Canada or Mexico and then brought to the US and their births registered? How many have hospital birth records? (answer-most born prior to 1900 don’t, because they weren’t born in hospitals). For that matter can you PROVE the father listed on their birth certificates really was their father? Are we going to require DNA testing? To require from 1 (who happens to be of a mixed-race background) what was not required from the other 43 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution and fundamental fairness.

Here is a challenge to Michael Seebeck and “John Adams”. I am very confident that none of this nonsense regarding his birth certificate will have the slightest impact on Obama’s serving out his term and standing for re-election (though I am not ready to predict right now whether his job performance will ensure his re-election). I will put my money where my mouth is and make a wager with either or both of you to that effect. Now, let’s see if you are confident enough in your positions to respond.