Comments on: The Washington Times Asks Bill Ayers if He Wrote Obama’s First Book http://washingtonindependent.com/43733/washington-times-asks-bill-ayers-if-he-wrote-obamas-first-book National News in Context Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:40:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Pete http://washingtonindependent.com/43733/washington-times-asks-bill-ayers-if-he-wrote-obamas-first-book/comment-page-1#comment-34217 Pete Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:34:39 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=43733#comment-34217 In order for the a theory to be "discredited" there has to be some evidence to support the discreditation. To date Obama has only produced a photo-shopped version of a Certification of Live Birth to several pro-Obama websites. The actual birth certificate has never been produced for inspection. That hardly rises to the level of candidate vetting that the voting public assumes would normally go on. Interestingly the Democratic National Party has remained completely silent on this issue, only sending in teams of attorneys to fight production of any documents that would actually answer this question.<br><br>The problem with the Certification of Live Birth shown by Obama on the websites is that it leaves off any verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, doctors that made the delivery and any witnesses. Those are all verifiable facts that could be confirmed to validate the birth and Obama's eligibility.<br><br>Due to the wormy laws in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth verification of the birth is required to confirm that it did happen in Hawaii. The only way to do that is for someone to physically look at the original birth certificate, a certified birth certificate or the vault birth certificate that Hawaii has announced they are holding. This has not been done.<br><br>Here is a website for Hawaii land programs that shows they do not accept what Obama produced as sufficient evidence to proof eligibility for the Hawaii land program. The natural born standard is the highest in the Country and like this Hawaii land program the Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient on its own to prove or disprove if Obama is eligible. That is the issue and that is why this is not a "discredited".<br><br><a href="http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2520Ka%2520Aina%2520Hoopulapula.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20A...</a> In order for the a theory to be “discredited” there has to be some evidence to support the discreditation. To date Obama has only produced a photo-shopped version of a Certification of Live Birth to several pro-Obama websites. The actual birth certificate has never been produced for inspection. That hardly rises to the level of candidate vetting that the voting public assumes would normally go on. Interestingly the Democratic National Party has remained completely silent on this issue, only sending in teams of attorneys to fight production of any documents that would actually answer this question.

The problem with the Certification of Live Birth shown by Obama on the websites is that it leaves off any verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, doctors that made the delivery and any witnesses. Those are all verifiable facts that could be confirmed to validate the birth and Obama's eligibility.

Due to the wormy laws in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth verification of the birth is required to confirm that it did happen in Hawaii. The only way to do that is for someone to physically look at the original birth certificate, a certified birth certificate or the vault birth certificate that Hawaii has announced they are holding. This has not been done.

Here is a website for Hawaii land programs that shows they do not accept what Obama produced as sufficient evidence to proof eligibility for the Hawaii land program. The natural born standard is the highest in the Country and like this Hawaii land program the Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient on its own to prove or disprove if Obama is eligible. That is the issue and that is why this is not a “discredited”.

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20A…

]]> By: Pete http://washingtonindependent.com/43733/washington-times-asks-bill-ayers-if-he-wrote-obamas-first-book/comment-page-1#comment-31907 Pete Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:34:39 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=43733#comment-31907 In order for the a theory to be "discredited" there has to be some evidence to support the discreditation. To date Obama has only produced a photo-shopped version of a Certification of Live Birth to several pro-Obama websites. The actual birth certificate has never been produced for inspection. That hardly rises to the level of candidate vetting that the voting public assumes would normally go on. Interestingly the Democratic National Party has remained completely silent on this issue, only sending in teams of attorneys to fight production of any documents that would actually answer this question.<br><br>The problem with the Certification of Live Birth shown by Obama on the websites is that it leaves off any verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, doctors that made the delivery and any witnesses. Those are all verifiable facts that could be confirmed to validate the birth and Obama's eligibility.<br><br>Due to the wormy laws in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth verification of the birth is required to confirm that it did happen in Hawaii. The only way to do that is for someone to physically look at the original birth certificate, a certified birth certificate or the vault birth certificate that Hawaii has announced they are holding. This has not been done.<br><br>Here is a website for Hawaii land programs that shows they do not accept what Obama produced as sufficient evidence to proof eligibility for the Hawaii land program. The natural born standard is the highest in the Country and like this Hawaii land program the Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient on its own to prove or disprove if Obama is eligible. That is the issue and that is why this is not a "discredited".<br><br><a href="http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2520Ka%2520Aina%2520Hoopulapula.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20A...</a> In order for the a theory to be “discredited” there has to be some evidence to support the discreditation. To date Obama has only produced a photo-shopped version of a Certification of Live Birth to several pro-Obama websites. The actual birth certificate has never been produced for inspection. That hardly rises to the level of candidate vetting that the voting public assumes would normally go on. Interestingly the Democratic National Party has remained completely silent on this issue, only sending in teams of attorneys to fight production of any documents that would actually answer this question.

The problem with the Certification of Live Birth shown by Obama on the websites is that it leaves off any verifiable information such as the name of the hospital, doctors that made the delivery and any witnesses. Those are all verifiable facts that could be confirmed to validate the birth and Obama's eligibility.

Due to the wormy laws in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth verification of the birth is required to confirm that it did happen in Hawaii. The only way to do that is for someone to physically look at the original birth certificate, a certified birth certificate or the vault birth certificate that Hawaii has announced they are holding. This has not been done.

Here is a website for Hawaii land programs that shows they do not accept what Obama produced as sufficient evidence to proof eligibility for the Hawaii land program. The natural born standard is the highest in the Country and like this Hawaii land program the Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient on its own to prove or disprove if Obama is eligible. That is the issue and that is why this is not a “discredited”.

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%20Ka%20A…

]]>