McCain Rival Hayworth: Birther Questions About ‘Identity Theft’

To get a passport you have to have your birth cert. with an original seal affixed.
jamescbuilder | Feb 16, 2010 11:48:10 AM
This is exactly what the President has provided. The state of Hawaii does not offer any more official document. And you do realize that Obama HAS a passport, right? So by your own assertion above he has provide that level of documentation already – unless you are proposing he ran for state senate, federal Senate, and President and no one ever noticed he had a forged passport (which is tougher to forge than a drivers license for beer at college!).

anyone who have lived, worked, or moved to a foreign country (or in some cases in the USA to get documents) has had to provide an APOSTILED certificate of birth. The APOSTILE is due to the Hague Treaty and the local official government issuing agency makes a raised seal on the document and signs it. It shows it is an “official” copy. This is basic. A copy, an unofficial copy, etc is not accepted by immigration officials (at least in European countries). I don’t think Obama isn’t a citizen, now, but it really makes me wonder when he spends so much time/money to NOT provide an official, apostiled copy? Weird.
-I also want to know how many passports has he held and from what countries.

Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you?
If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?
Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an “official” birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.
Does anyone know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at birther.com that would have allowed for such a thing to happen.
To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government has bothered to subject Obama’s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny. Furthermore, they have not even identified which burden of proof was applied to reach their conclusions. They have instead chosen to accept his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -“Born in Hawaii.” It reminds me of someone who tells another, “Because I say so.”
Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.
On a closing note, assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?

The exact longitude and latitude of someone’s mother on the day she gave birth should not be a deciding factor in whether someone can be president. According to the Constitution, if you were born in the US, then moved on the 2nd day of your life to a questionable country, lived there until you were 25, went to school there, went to college there, worked there, then returned to the US for 25 years, you’re eligible to be President. If you were born in the questionable country, and moved to the US legally on the 2nd day of your life, and lived here for the next 45 years, educated in America, college in America, served in the US military, lost two children to the war in Iraq, and had a career in goverment service, you cannot be President of the United States. Something’s wrong with that.

Zane, can you articulate any facts to support your conclusion?
Sheila, you are missing the point of my post. Do you know which one of the six vital records procedures was used to generate Obama’s 1961 vital record? Was it the one that required a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation, or was it one of the other five that arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud?
All many of the birthers want is to see Obama’s 1961 vital record, but to date, he has refused their request. You need to ask yourself why.

forseti: OMG! facts?……. you want facts?!! The biggest fact is that you are in the minority. I don’t have to provide you with any facts. It’s done… over. If anything YOU and your minority would have to come up with facts (REAL facts mind you) and then get someone of a higher authority to listen to you and put those facts to the test. Posting comments here is not helping your cause. I’m not going to debate this with you or any body else. I’ve probably said too much already for you to spin to make yourself feel better about your crusade. Like I said we all need a hobby. Knock yourself out!!

The “bither” movement was started by angry Hillary supporters. Just to set the record straight. They are called “PUMAS” Remember?

This is still and issue. My god there are so many other things that need to be addressed in this country. It’s embarrassing to think that this man can bring this up as an issue. I really do question Rep. J.D. Hayworths intelligence. I find it just laughable!!!

We know the address of 43 past presidents of where they were born and raised as children. Somehow no one knows Mr. Obama’s address in Hawaii. Why is that ? Why did he receive a scholorship as a foreign exchange student ? Why did he travel with a British passport ? You do know that he attended first grade in Indonesia when his mother re-married. What do we know about this man ?

@pizzaman7: Obama never traveled with a British passport. Why would he need one?
Oh wait, that’s because birthers believe there was a ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. Except there wasn’t.
Look it up on Snopes – see the Travel Advisory from the State Dept about visa requirements, read the New York Times travel column about Pakistan, marvel at the letter from our Consul General in Pakistan.
But birthers continue to lie about the ban in face of reality. What else are they lying about?