The President of the US is not anyone.
Actually, with respect to a birth certificate issued by the State where he/she was born, the President is exactly like anyone else. A request for a certified birth certificate from the State of Hawaii by any citizen will result in exactly the document that has been provided to Obama and to the media. The law (see below) says that this is the official birth certificate of the State and is proof that the person on the birth certificate was born in the state. You cant say
The Law says what it says, and some folks are seeking verification.?
To suggest that the law says something different than it does. The LAW of Hawaii says that the form provided is proof of birth in the state and is recognized by the State (and thus by all states and the federal government) as proof of live birth in the state of Hawaii.
As you said, the law says what the law says. That some people are seeking "verification" is not only irrelevant -- as they BY LAW may not be permitted or have any right to what you call "verification" -- but, additionally, the law of the state does, in fact, provide exactly the "verification" you say you want. The State of Hawaii says that he was born there and that is all the law provides and that is all the proof the law requires.
Scenario:
A supposed US born terrorist bomber is caught with explosives in his possession just before he blows up a building.
Would the FBI, etc. dig back to the original documents to check on the complete background of the person? Would they be able to go past the Hawaiian law that disallows persons from viewing the original birth certificate?
Is the background of a terrorist less important than the background of our president?.?
The easy answer is NO they would not be able to "go beyond" the Hawaii law BECAUSE that is the only official state document of the birth that now exists. THe FBI would by law take the State Certification for what it legally is CERTIFIED PROOF by the State that the person on the birth certificate was born in the state. This would not just be true for Hawaii but most if not all other states that essentially (in one form or another ) do the same thing. Your senario simply doesn't work either legally or from an investagatory stand point.
[/QUOTE]
I had another thought this morning about Obama's refusal to release his BC.
It is good that your thinking, but so sad that your thinking is so muddled to the point where you accept lies as truth. The one certain thing here is that Obama has not ever refused to release his birth certificate. He has released it. It is on the web for all to see. It has been examined by experts who have confirmed that it is an official State of Hawaii birth certificate.
What he hasn't done is release the super secret special magical birth certificate that only Obama of everyone born in Hawaii was issued. But that one, I'm afraid, is probably not admissible in any court of law -- specifically because the crayon coloring is smudged and the issuer colored outside the lines.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps he was born in Hawaii and his father's name is not the father as shown on the BC.
Is this possible?
Sure, the sun may not come up tomorrow. That's possible too. What difference would it make? The stupidity of your "possiblity" is, essentially to admit that he was born in Hawaii. What difference do you think it would make to anyone if his father isn't Barrak Obama Sr? Especially in this day and age...we've had other presidents born of different fathers than the names they carry ... Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton for example (borh Leslie King and William Blythe). It is a meaningless possiblity that completely undermines your magical premise that the President was somehow born in Kenya to a Marxist/Islamofaciest father and is not a citizen. Get your freak'n conspiracies straigth.
BTW, what do we really know about Lislie King Sr?
