-I Am Foxx-
I've been checking this story out for a while now. Its all over independent news sites but far away from mass media. I also saw an article on fox saying that "the birth certificate is definitely real". I don't think it is. Check this out.
1. There's a reason it's all over independent news sites. The privately owned media corporations already beaten that dead horse to death four years ago. When Obama was coming into office, there was a big uproar about whether or not Obama was a naturally born citizen of the United States (as is required to run for the presidency). The news jumped on it then. Obama got the officials in Hawaii (where he was born) to confirm the authenticity of his birth certificate. Most of the big news sources figured it was legit, and dropped it. However, some people kept hounding him about it, so they finally produced scanned copies of the birth certificate to release to the entire nation to say, see? This is a picture of what the officials in Hawaii authenticated. By that point, Obama had been elected, this was old news, and people just let it go. However, some people will not let it go. They're convinced it is a conspiracy, Obama is out to destroy our country, blah blah blah.
2. What evidence do you have about the birth certificate
not being real? Someone on the internet said it wasn't?
What does the article ACTUALLY say? Does it contain transcripts from the trial showing that Hill said it can't be proven that Obama's birth certificate is real? No. Does it contain the account from a reporter at the trial who said that Hill admitted this? No. The article contains a quote from the guy trying to prove that the birth certificate was a forgery saying that Hill said it couldn't be proven that it wasn't. What we got was hearsay.
If you would like, you can look at the actual hearing and see what was actually said.
youtube link
Around 38:00, the judge restates that the issue of the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate is not what this case is about. It is not the position that is being argued by either side, and therefore is irrelevant to how he will be making his decision. He states that this is why the witness for the authenticity of the birth certificate was not called for this case.
Let me say that again. This case was not about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. It was about the definition of a natural-born citizen and whether someone whose parents were not both citizens of the United States at the time of that person's birth, can be called a natural-born citizen. (The argument being made is basically that being born in the United States and having that birth be the basis for your citizenship is not the same as a natural-born citizen.)
Now, let's look at what was actually said in the discussion of whether or not to include this witness in the trial.
youtube link
Hill makes four arguments here.
Argument 1: The birth certificate is not relevant to their discussion at this hearing. Apuzzo brought up the issue of whether being born in the US is enough to qualify someone as a natural-born citizen, and the case on that day was arguing the law in respect to that. Therefore, whether or not the birth certificate was real would not affect his argument, as that argument must assume that Obama was in fact born in the US to have any relevancy whatsoever.
Argument 2: Apuzzo's expert witness has not seen the original documents of Obama's birth. He has only seen the computer images. Therefore, the witness would only be able to testify on the authenticity of the computer images, not on the birth certificate itself. Because that New Jersey court does not have access to the actual certificate, they cannot confirm or deny its authenticity, and therefore cannot prove that Obama is ineligible to be placed on the ballot on those terms.
Note from me: Other people have confirmed the authenticity of the birth certificate. Therefore, the burden is now on people to disprove that if they want to claim that the birth certificate is a fraud.
The judge then agrees that the testimony of the witness that the birth certificate is a forgery is irrelevant to Apuzzo's case (and Apuzzo agrees) because the argument that Apuzzo is trying to make is that, by not presenting the original document to the Secretary of State, Obama has not proven his eligibility to run for president.
Argument 3: New Jersey law does not require that a candidate publish, produce, or release an official birth certificate to be placed on the Presidential Primary ballot. Ergo, Obama does not need to produce any birth certificate, electronic or physical, in order to be on the ballot. Seeing as this case is SPECIFICALLY ruling on whether or not Obama can be legally placed on their ballot, this is an entirely acceptable argument to make. She is not saying that Obama doesn't have to prove he is a natural-born citizen in order to be president. She is saying he doesn't need to prove that in order to be placed on the New Jersey ballot.
Argument 4: There has been no verified contrary evidence to prove that the authentication of his actual birth certificate is false.
At this point, the judge asks her, "Indeed, you concede that Obama has not produced a alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State, saying here's my birth certificate." *mimes holding up a piece of paper* (It is clear at this point that he is referring to the original document itself, not a photo-copy of that document)
Hill responded, "Not to my knowledge."
The judge then goes on to say that, because Obama has not done this, and because Apuzzo is arguing that he MUST do this, the authenticity of the electronic copy is irrelevant to this case.
Apuzzo then asks, and I quote, "Can we have a clear stipulation that that internet birth certificate is in no way evidence, in any shape or form, of whether or not-"
The judge cuts him off, "In this case?"
Apuzzo: "Yes, in this case."
Hill agrees.
That's all that was said. Hill argued that the birth certificate was not relevant to this case. The judge agreed. Apuzzo asked that Hill agree then that the internet birth certificate no be considered evidence in this case. Hill and the judge both agreed. That's it.
175
200
100
