Posted on 12/08/2008 7:12:24 AM PST by cycle of discernment
too bad
“”I think it will not go away and in fact may become larger since he did fight so hard to avoid producing it. It will not go away.””
How do you figure?
“”Note to the SCOTUS: You’d’ve done this nation a service by airing this out.””
Are you serious? They’’ve done no service, but I guess you’re kidding by saying that - yes? I’m a little slow tonight on the uptake :-)))
Does Cort’s case take in the birth certificate issue? I hope its not just a regurgitation of Leo’s failed case.
OTOH all SOS should verify what they are given, to illuminate fraud.
Dig around http://naturalborncitizen.com for emerging details.
[§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.
There is nothing in the current law that says how long after the birth the application has to be made.
Sorry I'm on dial up and it takes forever for my computer to download and print/read the information. Eternalvigilance should know.
good observation. maybe the application was made in June 2007, and that's why the date-stamp that bled through from the back of the fightthesmears Certification of Live Birth says 6 June 2007.
Check out the link on this posst for more detail.
have you been following Donofrio/Wronowski?(sp?)Donofrio-denied/Wronowski-full hearing SCOTUS Dec 12th.
This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country’s laws. If that were the case, Iran could pass a law tomorrow that all U.S. citizens of Iran, disqualifying anyone..so unless you are of the opinion that foreign laws apply to U.S. citizens this case is folly.....maybe the Iranians will also require each of us to pay income taxes
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access / on this server.
You may need to create an index.html page or enable the directory browsing by creating an .htaccess file containing “Options +Indexes”.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.naturalborncitizen.com Port 80
There is no definitive evidence to support your view, and that is why the Supreme Court needs to rule on what "natural born citizen" means. Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen, and it is not reasonable to assume that the United States would not honor his wish, had he demonstrated it, to take his child to his place of residence in Kenya. Obama Sr. had rights afforded him as the father of that child under the law in effect regarding nationality in the UK (1948). That law provided that his progeny were also British subjects. I doubt that the United States would have denied Obama Sr. his legal rights as parent, so in that sense, indeed, Obama Jr. inherited his nationality from his father at birth.
The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr's citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.
I'm not sure that The Great Oz calling someone a "vexatious litigant" is going to garner much sympathy from me...
“No, that law was revised in 1982. It has been in effect in one form or another even before Hawaii became a state. Also according to the current law, he could walk in today and ask for a copy himself:
[§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.
There is nothing in the current law that says how long after the birth the application has to be made.
The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr’s citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.
***
If Obama is found to be a dual national, how can he be a “natural born” citizen ? A “natural born” citizen owes allegiance to ONE and ONLY ONE nation.
Obama may be “native born” but he is certainly NOT “natural born” ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual nationality is “a status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717, 1952).
It is generally considered that while dual nationals are in the country of which they are citizens that country has a predominant claim on their allegiance.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.
“Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth says that he was born in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 P.M.
Obama’s FAKE Certificate of Live Birth says....”
He has never shown a Certificate of Live Birth to anyone. What he posted on his site was a Certification of Live Birth.(COLB) That has been shown to be a forgery.
That is not what she said.
This is what she actually said :
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real. “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.
They conveniently left out what she went on to say :
“When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.” Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
So they can't confirm that the copy posted on the site is a legitimate copy.It may resemble one, but it can't be authenticated .
First I'd heard that Ron Paul joined one of these cases. There's someone else who has "standing".
Good to hear.
We don't know for a fact that one or more may have had their childrens' lives threatened. A.S. alone has what, nine? Plus grandkids?
0B's string-pulllers mean business. Just a thought....
I did read on a non-government site something about how the U.S. recognition of dual citizenship had changed in the last ten years, so perhaps in 1961, it wasn’t recognized. But it’s hard to believe that Osama Sr. would have been prevented from exercising his parental right to take the child to Kenya if he so chose. In that case, I cannot believe the U.S. would have prevented him and said it was because Osama Sr. did not give UK allegiance to his son at birth.
Here’s the site: http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-dual.htm
And here’s the text:
4. I heard that the US and Canada don’t allow Dual Citizenship. Is this true?
This is incorrect. Both the US and Canada now allow their citizens to hold multiple citizenships. Most references to the contrary are out of date since this has been resolved for at least ten years in the case of the United States and over twenty in the case of Canada. Note that the respective governments often couch dual citizenship in negative terms as few governments like to lose control over their citizens.
So, according to my lights, the distilled question can be stated this way:
In 1961, would the United States government consider a child born in Hawaii of an American mother and a UK subject to have dual citizenship?
What might be helpful to the cause is if a lot of people were to pose this question to their local office of the State Department in their respective cities. I’m in Boston, so I can do it here.
What do you all think? Where are you located? Are you willing to pose this question — in writing or in person — in order to further the effort to arrive at an understanding of the true circumstances of Obama’s citizenship?
Let’s do it! Or do you see a flaw in my “magic question”?
You slime around on these threads like an oozing sore.
Why don’t you read the actual information and then try and argue? Your ignorance is transparently revealing that you are either an 0 supporter or someone who just likse to fling s**t.
>>>If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.<<<
Thanks for the quotes. Very damning and damnable.
There is no outcome that would satisfy the genuine nutbags on this. You could have the delivering obstetrician and nursing staff offer sworn depositions and they would be accused of being frauds, plants, or Indonesian terrorist double agents. It is all so much crap. They guy was born in Hawaii - that makes him a citizen (and don't give me that "but, but he's not 'natural born'..."). He's going to be the next POTUS. I for one think conservatives better learn how to work with his administration or they really will be left out in the cold. You can't hold your breath until the next election.
And I'll throw in a National Review article that says pretty much the same thing for good measure:
"The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
‘bit ‘o’ prayer tonight for TRUTH... sorry to those who are offended and want to brand me a TRUTHER... the truth is the truth...
Sorry, but the Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen, not just “a” citizen.
That’s the fundamental law of the land, and it’s too late to pretend it’s not in the Constitution.
The question the Supreme Court should be addressing is whether the dual citizenship Obama inherited at birth precludes him from being a natural born citizen. On its face, I would think it does, but I’m hoping the Supreme Court will rule on this.
We cannot just ignore the Constitution. Those of you who think we can are just acting like children who want to pretend that they have no parents enforcing rules.
I’m with you I never bought this for a second.
There is some fishiness around the documents unavailability and his dad’s mother swears Obama was born in the village (senile, pride thing, or mixed up with one of her other grandchildren) but it’s so implausible. Even with some FRiends I respect and my own mother believing it I don’t.
Even it were true his mom was American so if he’d be ineligible it would be because of a technicality.
And their would be stronger evidence.
Maybe the birth certificate names Obama’s Marxist mentor and friend of his granfather, (forget his name) as his real father though! That’s a conspiracy theory I can get behind. ;)
I sense your frustration...I too am frustrated with this situation...But he is a human being, albiet he does not represent any real American conservative values, nor does he tout any agenda that I agree with...
He’ll go out of his way to do whatever it takes to get his idea of fairness and justice deeper into the intellectually lazy populace in this country, and he’ll do it with the blessing of his majority in congress and the senate...
I hope this becomes a recoverable lesson for conservatives to not consentrate on something that is certainly important, but it is an issue that I wish some key players in our government could have taken care of if they had the courage to do so...
Hope this helps some?:
The difference between "natural-born citizen" and "naturalized citizen" as related to the eligibility/qualifications of POTUS was determined/discussed in the 12th Amendment - Article II - Section 1. - Clause 5.
Here's an excerpt:
12th Amendment - Article II - Section 1. - Clause 5
Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
VerDate Aug<04>2004 13:21 Oct 06, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 8222 Sfmt 8222 C:\CONAN\CON011.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON011
456 ART. II—EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Sec. 1—The President Cl. 5—Qualifications 100 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
101 Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 886-887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘‘Heads of Departments’’ in the appointments clause. See also id. at 917 (Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered ‘‘naturalized’’ by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). 102 Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672-675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase). 103 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, § 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731). 104 See, e.g., Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968).
QUALIFICATIONS
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 100 Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’ Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 101 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’ 102 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 103 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens...
If you read my previous posts, I have never “told anyone to drop it”. I try very hard to engage on the facts. I absolutely believed that there was something here right before the election, but I started doing independent research. I simply espouse people to look into things for themselves.
Further, I enjoy reading the well thought out analysis of these issues, since a certain amount of suspicion remains in my mind.
“Catching up on the thread with some late evening reading. Grampa Dave - Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?”
No, but I was one the first to recognize the postings of this Zer0 Troll and helped to show it to the FR exit.
I think we agree that there is reason for suspicion. I do wish O will be legally compelled to release the vault certificate, though voluntarily would be better.
Bringing in argument like the Sun stuff just weakens the argument and distracts from real issues. During Sun’s time, the US enforced the Chinese Exclusion Act and so his supporters in China forged birth records to get him into the US. Further, 1904 is not the 1960’s and certainly not modern times. I am not ruling out foul play, but record keeping in territorial Hawaii was not up to modern standards.
BTW, and as a caveat: I have seen the images in question. Having had a good deal of experience with document science, photography and computer graphics, I could not say for certain that the images had been manipulated beyond the obvious redactions made for privacy reasons.
Compression algorithms common to .jpg/jpeg images can do some funky things to pixels around the perimeters of geometric shapes, especially when filters have been applied to them to enhance or diffuse sharpness, resize the original, detect or isolate edges, or even adjust properties such as gamma and contrast. I've manipulated thousands of images myself, and seen all manner of strange things happen, especially when images are resampled from one format to another.
In the digital age, the only way to absolutely prove that a document is genuine is hands-on inspection. Otherwise, one would normally accord a presumption of authenticity to a state-issued document based upon the opinion of a relevant official. That presumption can be overcome by a presentation of compelling evidence to the contrary, which, as in this case, is not always easy to come by.
I hope someone prevails on the authorities in this instance to allow for an independent expert to make such an examination. If nothing else, it would put to rest the sort of needless speculation generated by the Obama camp's unnerving tendency toward secrecy.
That's the one point that has nagged at me from the beginning.
I had hoped the issue would be confronted, but didn't have high expectations. It is going to be a tough battle to turn back these leftists.
The reason I am uncomfortable with situation is that many, many on here do not seem to have a strong, coherent argument. I have read some well done analysis of the legal cases, but beyond that, most posts degenerate into a mishmash of speculation and innuendo. Any facts which do not fit into the ineligibility scenario are dismissed or explained away as fraud or forgery.
It seems the bottom line is “why won’t he release the vault copy”. Indeed. But all that gives us is suspicion, not proof. Frustrating, yes, but not PROOF. I would just like to see a bit more intellectual rigor.
I feel confidant that O was born in Hawaii, based on the birth announcements in the papers. I am trying to explore the issues beyond that to see if there is anything else to disqualify him. Will wait with baited breath for Friday.
I totally agree. Which makes Factchecks analysis meaningless. They post photos of the document held at a distance. If they were being truly honest , they would have posted a high resolution TIFF scan. There is no reason why he shouldn’t allow the release of his COLB to the public. The whole reason for the state not releasing it is to protect the privacy of the individual. By releasing it to the public already, he has in effect waived that right. There is no need to keep it from the public. One might say he wouldn’t want people to have a certified copy of his COLB. That is fine. The registrar can release the index records of all the data on the COLB. It would verify the information on his COLB without releasing the actual copy.
The Constitution does not specify that both parents need to be citizens for a child born on US soil to be natural born.
The Constitution does not require that both parents be citizens in order for a person to be “natural born”.
For case law, see US vs. Wong, 1897 or so. The US confers citizenship jus soli, by virtue of place of birth, not jus sanguinis, by blood.
Er, no, that’s kinda not how it works. Obama, a smuch as I loathe him being president, is a natural born citizen until proven otherwise.
As much as it may gall you, the truth of the matter is that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. That’s kinda how our legal system works, eve when it protects people that we do not like.
Maybe I misunderstood your original posting. I thought you said that the Constitutional requirement for president to be native born citizen was, essentially, not worth fighting for. In other words, we should just move along.
If I erred I apologize. But if my take was correct then you are obviously not willing to fight for “all” of the Constitution.
It is true, but we have exceptions in the Constitution for the children of citizens abroad.
Jus soli gives us anchor babies.
Once again I think you are confusing Citizen with Natural Born Citizen.
The Wong VS US case was about citizenship and if he a person was born here, were they a CITIZEN. According to other SCOTUS cases, the “natural born” consists of not being being born as a subject of a foreign power, which Obama was.
I don’t doubt Obama’s citizenship, I doubt his “natural born citizenship”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.