OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Hoorah!

Banning a specific user is unlikely to help, a better idea would be a two stage idea submission process;

To start ideas are rather then looks promising/i'm not sure the options are "Go to discuss", "Float away"

Ideas that go to discuss continue to step 2, ideas that float away are archived with the topic and keywords noted so in future similar topics are automatically flagged as, "Someone suggested this before and it didn't go so well, do you want to see if people want to discuss it now?" or something.

The forum definitely needs some tweaking.. It's pretty obvious this is fertile soil for growing trolls.

I'm just impressed that it got to -20 so quickly. People seem very opposed to this. Or is there someone out there with multiple accounts?

Why impressed? It looks like everyone who posts articles about his birth certificate validity etc. just troll for things to vote down, and vote up their own nonsensical vitriol, without actually engaging in any discussion..

They are obviously right and will not be convinced otherwise. ;)

I am open to discussing any issue, and I have. However, some of my comments have been deleted because my opinions apparently differ from those of one or more of the moderators. I by no means always correct. I merely want an equal opportunity to participate in dialog.

Jwelborn: I would love to hear anyone who honestly want to discuss issues. I feel everyone should have an equal opportunity to discuss things. That's why people who abuse the system to make it unusable need to be banned.

To quote the front page:

"Any post that is duplicative or contains obscenity, threats, or personally identifiable information will be removed from the site. Contrary to some claims made in posts on this site, we are not censoring ideas that do not violate this moderation policy."

Does anyone understand why people would be opposed to this idea? If you are opposed, please let me know why. I would love to discuss it.

Their position is faith based and can not tolerate dissent so they cry for bans. Same old leftists full of hate for anything or anyone who dies not share their views.

davidmanheim, please not that there is an open thread in which one of the posters is demanding that anyone who asks birth certificate/ constitutional eligibility questions provide just such personal information as social security numbers. I can only conclude that this is an attempt to get people banned from the forum. I will find that thread and post it here for you to handle.

Typical Socialist. Can't stand questions and prefers eliminations to diverse discussion.

Jwelborn:

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Are you saying that because someone stupid is upset that most of the people on your side are ruining the forum and trying to get them to break rules doing so, you can ignore forum rules completely? If so, it's a bad argument. If not, please explain your logic.

davidmanheim, I should have been more clear. I ask only that you warn people soliciting prohibited information not to do so, rather than only acting against those who fall for it.

As for anyone being on my "side" I have seen no one here whose opinions match mine on every issue. On the eligibility issue, I have merely stated that I have been shown no verifiable proof either way

On point 1, I'm confused - you agree with me, but you also think other people should be banned? Create an item. I'm OK banning anyone violating rules. I don't think he's wrong for falling for this, nor was I aware he did. I think he's wrong for ruining the forum by posting so many times.

And on any given issue, generally we think that there are 2 sides. Based on your comments, you think that Obama needs to somehow do more than he has to prove he was born in this country, and I do not. That places us on opposite sides of the issue. Those who agree with you are on your side.

As for the actual issue, we've been shown tons of verifiable proof - pictures and scans of a birth certificate, almost every person in state government who could do so (including Hawaii's governer and the head of the Hawaii Department of Health) said that it existed and they saw it, a number of peole in the news media ocrroborated it, McCain admitted it wasn't a problem, and there were even notices in Honolulu's newspaper at the time (1961) announcing his birth. All of these things are public. What else could you want?

Oh, I know what we could tell you that might make you admit that the theory is crazy. Even if none of this were true, his mom's an American citizen. He's American no matter whether he was born here or not.

I have done some research on this issue trying desperately to compile enough evidence to make a definitive statement but have been unable to do so.

If you can direct me to a scan of an actual "birth certificate" I would appreciate it. All I have seen to date are scans of a "certification of live birth". It is verifiable public record that a "certification of live birth" is not accepted as a birth certificate, even by the state of Hawaii itself. A "certification of live birth" may also be issue to someone who has presented a valid foreign birth certificate. The only statements made by Hawaiian official were that a birth certificate existed and had been reviewed. No where was it that said "birth certificate" was issued by the state of Hawaii.

As to parentage, it is also public record that, by the laws applicable at the time of Obama's birth, having 1 parent who was a citizen of the U.S. did not automatically confer citizenship upon a child.

If any of what I said above is inaccurate, please direct me to a source for the correct information.

By source I mean case law, not articles in the Huffington Post or factcheck.org

As to parentage, you are incorrect. (Having a friend clerking for a judge, with Lexis-Nexis, is very helpful at times like these) I can't help with case law. A plain reading of the US code, however, should do the trick. As of his birth, look at the Nationality Act, Section 201(g,h) Passed, I believe, Oct 14, 1940. (Unless Obama was actually born before 1935, or his mother isn't really American, or he didn't really live where he said he did for high school. It's possible. Make whatever claim you like, and we can discuss it.)

Well, if he got a chance to see the birth certificate he would likely stop posting!

According to http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Therefore, if the birth occurred outside the U.S. to an 18 year old mother, the requirements for citizenship were not met....or do you have some evidence that Obama's parents were not married at the time of his birth?

I could not get confirmation that the certification of live birth could be based on a foreign birth certificate. I may have misread that. However, it can be prepare based solely on a statement by someone claiming to have knowledge of the birth

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0006.htm

§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

As to the difference between the 2 types of birth documents

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Am I missing something, or do you believe one of the above sources has incorrect information? Does Lexis-Nexis conflict with the Department of State website?

Found the out of state clause

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Nice move. You ask me to cite case law, and then you pull out the current law for the state of Hawaii? Do you think he (or I) was born yesterday? Do you think there was a computer generated certificate of his birth in 1960?

"For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child."

This is incorrect on the face of the reading of the law (in your favor, not mine.) Given that, I need to question the legitimacy of the information provided. Of course, you need to make a specific claim about why you think that Ann Dunham was not in Hawaii, and where she was. We have records of her as a student at the time of the birth. If she was abroad for a reason unrelated to a religious, educational, scientific, etc. American organization then you might have a claim. Where, in your imagination, was she, and what was she doing?

I'm still worried that you didn't notice that your central claim, that there is no proof he was born in Hawaii, is gone. You said that he could have a birth certificate if born outside Hawaii, but not a certificate of live birth.

I could not sleep so I went back through the folder full of links I had compiled. I did not have them handy yesterday evening and had planned to go to sleep early.

I do not believe there were computer generated forms in 1960 but I do believe the "certificate" and "certification" were 2 separate forms.

I am not an attorney, and will admit that I took the Department of State's interpretation as accurate.

I have no idea where Ms. Dunham was when she gave birth and do not claim to know. I not making a claim. I am only pointing out that I have not seen proof of the claims of others. I have not seen Ms. Dunham's school records and was not aware that they had been published. Can you direct me to them, please?

My understanding is that the "certification" has always been the short form of the "certificate". The "certification" indicates birth in Honolulu but does not indicate whether this information was gathered at a hospital at the time of birth or later based on a "witness" statement.

As to the "certificate" issued to those born outside Hawaii to Hawaiian parents, I mention that to address the another theory being circulated; that the birth location on the published "certification" has been altered. This is much less likely in my opinion, but not impossible.

It is entirely possible that all the information on the published "certification" is true and correct. It is also possible that it is based on a false "witness" statement. There are other, less likely, possibilities. So far I see room for reasonable doubt either way.

I'll start by saying that you should be able to tell the difference between the phrase "certificate of live birth," and "birth certificate." I will continue to say that unless you are making a claim, you have no argument. The claim you had made is that no-one else backed up their own claim, which is manifestly false.

Again, "we've been shown tons of verifiable proof - pictures and scans of a birth certificate, almost every person in state government who could do so (including Hawaii's [governor] and the head of the Hawaii Department of Health) said that it existed and they saw it, a number of [people] in the news media [corroborated] it, McCain admitted it wasn't a problem, and there were even notices in Honolulu's newspaper at the time (1961) announcing his birth. All of these things are public. What else could you want?"

I am unsure what level of proof you desire. Do you want to see the physical record? Clearly a scan ofthe document on CNN or Foxnews isn't enough. Have you gone to Hawaii to ask to see it? If you saw it, would you believe it existed? That it was real? What about testimony from, say, the supreme court that it was valid and existed, and was not an issue? Or would God himself speaking to you even convince you?

Those pictures and scans you cite as evidence have been debunked as crude forgeries by several expert witnesses who make a living determining forgeries from legitimate documents. What the Gov. and State Sec. stated they saw was the original CLB, not the original long form. The newspaper clipping could easily be a forgery. If not, it could have been submitted by Soetoro's maternal grandparents as a matter of pride (before he labeled them "typical white people" with typical white prejudices)

The only evidence that will satisfy Mr. Soetoro's doubters will be the original vault copy of the long form birth certificate and verifiable hospital records showing that he was born in Hawaii. However, at this point, after so much fraud and stonewalling, I believe that we would also need a forensic lab to test the papers to determine age and authenticity.

Until then, his extant grandmother's testimony that he was born in her village and the Kenyan government's blanket gag order on all members of his family barring discussion of his birth speaks far louder than those juvenile forgeries and Soetoro's intractable refusal to show the damn forms!

I thought I made it clear above. The uncertainty I have is based on the fact that the "certification of live birth" displayed does not indicate whether it was completed at a hospital at the time of birth, or afterward based on the statement of someone claiming to have witnesses the birth.

Here is a hypothetical scenario. Obama Sr. and his young, pregnant bride, make quick trip to Kenya to see Obama sr.'s family. During the trip, Obama Jr. is unexpectedly born slightly early. When the couple returns to Honolulu, the maternal grandmother wishes her grandson to have the benefits of Hawaiian birth. She contacts a court clerk and states that she witnesses the home birth of the child.

I have no proof that the above scenario occurred. What exactly, in the published evidence proves it did not?

The "certificate" rather than the "certification" should include the hospital or residence where birth was stated to have occurred as well as who gave the information upon which the "certificate" was based.

If a home birth is indicated on the "certificate" it would not be proof that the document was false. However, it would disagree with Obama Jr's published statements.

If the "certificate" indicated a hospital birth, it could be compared to the hospital records for confirmation.

I had to provide my employed with a birth certificate, state ID, my fingerprints, my high school and college transcripts, character references, a psychological evaluation, a drug test, and a polygraph exam.

I am not asking for nearly so much.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the form does not work because a field that does not exist was not filled out. You doubt it because his mother could have left the country, despite no evidence that she did.

The legal standard for the certificate of live birth is that it be filled out at the time of the birth, then filed to be registered. Unless, again, you have some evidence to back up you ridiculous claim that this is not what happened, I don't see where your problem is.

You are looking for negative proof, and if that is the standard of evidence you need, I'm not interested in further discussing anything with you.

The only evidence mentioned in this thread is the tape that Philip Berg claimed to have. It never surfaced, and his claims are to be evaluated with the respect due to him, based on his other fantastical claims. Unless you think it is reasonable to believe Bush was part of a cover-up for 9/11, you should probably discount his statements.

No sir. I am saying that there are 2 different forms. The "certificate of live birth" is supposed to be filled out at the time of birth by either the hospital or parent. If this is not done, then an agent of the department of health completes a "certificate" based on the statements of someone "having knowledge of the birth."

The "certification of live birth" is a short form that is generated based on the information on the "certificate of live birth" but does not include all of the information.

The information I am interested in seeing is not on the "certification of live birth" but IS on the "certificate of live birth". As you pointed out, Hawaiian officials have stated that the "certificate of live birth" exists and is on file. However the "certificate" has not been published, only the "certification" has.

I have stated that, when I applied for my job, I was required to prove my eligibility, my employer was not required to disprove it. I'm certain that your employer is much the same way. I have said that I cannot prove that Obama is ineligible to hold office and have no intention of doing so. What I'm curious about is why a presidential candidate should be presumed eligible until proven otherwise. No other employer uses that standard. Would you hire an accountant if you asked him/her about his/her accounting degree and his/her response was "you can't prove I don't have one" or "several prominent people have stated that my degree exists" of if you where given a sworn statement that he/she received a degree but not specifying the college or date?

Apply the same standards to all. Any elected official should be able to provide proof of eligibility that can be corroborated.

I'm not sure why I am having so much difficulty making myself understood.

I think in terms of criminal cases. I could not go before a jury and swear that I have seen conclusive proof of eligibility.

You seem to believe that in 1961, the state of Hawaii only had one birth record form, the "certification of live birth" rather than the 2 they have now. If you can provide some documentation of that, then it makes the situation much different.

As for Mr. Berg, I'm not inclined to believe any statement he makes unless supported by evidence either.

You think there are 2 different forms. I'm not sure why.

You think there should be a second form, but I'm not sure why. You think that the burden of proof is on Obama, (and me,) even though you have accepted the validity of a form that you said, and the form says, is prima facie evidence. The burden of proof is now on... wait...

Get this:

You.

An employer is required by the government to have proof that you are eligible for employment. That means either seeing a passport (Obama has one,) or a government ID and a form documenting birth. (He has those too, seemingly.) Why am I wrong about these claims, and why do you keep changing the burden of proof? Could it be because, as you admitted, you don't have any?

I do not want there to be 2 different forms. The state of Hawaii says that there are 2 different forms.

Passport- as a senator he would have been issued a passport without the normal identification review.

Form documenting birth- you used the correct word "seemingly". I have no proof that the "certification of live birth" is invalid but have no proof that it is valid either. Has any federal official made a sworn statement that the document was reviewed and found valid? All I have seen are statements from reporters. I too would like to believe that someone must have checked prior to the election, but have not heard of anyone actually admitting to having done so. All we have is the presumption that "someone must have"

Hawaiian officials stated that there is an official "certificate" on file. Never was it stated that the file copy matched the scans published online.

Does it not strike you as strange that the published "certification of live birth" has not been introduced as evidence in any of the cases so far taken to court?

The only legal argument that has been made by Obama's attorneys so far is that no citizen has standing to challenge eligibility.

If the evidence is truly so clear as you believe, why fight for over a year to avoid presenting it in any official proceeding?

Again, and this is well past the last time I should need to say this, there is a presumption that people are not falsifying documents, or lying in the performance of their duties. We also presume that multiple judges ruling that the dispute is without merit means that it is without merit. (Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), and Hollister v. Soetoro. Civil Action No. 08-2254)

You don't understand the idea of "burden of proof." Your standard of proof is either distorted, or you don't understand the arguments being put forward. Since all of the public servants, and judges, etc. have accepted that Obama is a valid US Citizen, the problem either lies with you, or reality is biased against the truth as you see it, somehow.

In conclusion, I have entertained this much further than I should have, and you are not willing to accept that your view might be wrong. I entertained exactly that view, and was convinced by your incredible lack of proof that your position is in fact wrong, and your assertions baseless.

Unless you somehow change your method of argument, and start acting reasonably, I'm all done. Thanks for clarifying that your argument has no merit.

Sir, I have looked at both of the cases you list. In the first, the lack of standing is addresses. In the second, the judge makes an issue of the intentions of the petitioner.

In neither case is there any finding of fact as to the validity or existence of Obama's documents.

I have asked repeatedly that you point me to the evidence you believe to be available. You have replied that there is no need for you to do so because the burden of proof is on me, and that there is a presumption that you are correct.

I have named the evidence I would like to see (certificate of live birth) and you have acted as if it did not exist. I pointed out that the state of Hawaii publishes that it does exist. In response, you reference 2 cases in which no discovery of evidence was allowed to occur.

The criminal court equivalent would be claiming that someone was found "not guilty" because the judge ruled that he/she was not mentally competent to stand trial.

I would agree that this dialog has proved entirely fruitless, were it not for the fact that others may read it and conduct their own research. Perhaps one of them can direct me to some verifiable evidence.