Let's prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii So we Can Move Onto His British Birth

Let this post be fair warning… Leo Donofrio is now interested in the birth certificate… so that we can finally prove Obama was born in Hawaii and stop the never ending circus surrounding BIGFOOT – an official long form birth certificate for President Obama.

How can a person who admits to having been born a British citizen – governed at birth by British law – be a natural born citizen of the United States?

This is a very serious legal question. Obama's father was never a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. The leading Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark indicates that the native born son of an alien is not natural born. There is no conspiracy theory attached to this question. Let's state it another way:

Can a person who is at birth a dual citizen be considered a natural born citizen for purposes of meeting the Constitution’s requirements to be POTUS?

That is in no way a conspiracy theory. The US State department web site - now run by Obama – tells us that dual citizens owe allegiance to both nations and that while on the soil of the foreign nation that nation has a greater claim to the person than the US. It is certainly not trivial for US citizens to ask whether dual citizenship at birth means a person is not a “natural born citizen” of the US.

But as long as the never ending search for Bigfoot continues to obscure the real legal question, the true issue here will not only be attached to the conspiracy theory, it will be ridiculed as well.

Because of the conundrum, this blog will now also be concerned with an investigation into the vital records of President Obama as well as an intense focus upon the activities of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Office of Information Practices. I hope to one day put these officials under oath and cross-examine them thoroughly.

I have always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii and I expect this investigation will reveal that he was. Upon proving that he was born in Hawaii, we may uncover details which indicate that Obama and Hawaii government officials purposely used the birth certificate issue to distract the nation from his British birth problems. If a smokescreen can be made clear, the nation will better comprehend the Constitutional blasphemy inherent in the 2008 POTUS election and the current White House resident.

Should our investigation prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, I will be very surprised, but I am certainly open to that conclusion.

I have written this post as a preview to some very interesting research – documents and letters issued by the State of Hawaii – which have not been made public yet. I will be making those public very soon as they are the product of researchers I am working with. Stay tuned. It’s going to get interesting.

Lucas Smith provided a Kenyan Birth Certificate to Orly Taitz with a sworn affidavit to the court about how he went to Kenya and got it. Do a google of Lucas Smith and you can look at the documents.
I personally have checked every line and could find no inconsistencies. Hilton Magonga IS the Hospital Administrator TODAY that stamped and signed the copy. All of the information is correct. The attending physician was working then in Mombasa, and the doctors daughter Mary Atieno Ang’awa (Kenya)was also born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Place and date of birth: Mombasa, Kenya, 8 March 1954. Nationality: Kenyan.
She is now a prominent High Court Justice in Nairobi.
The fathers Village where he was born is correct.
The administrator of the hospital is correct as well...

No, the MSM will not report it because they are in bed with Obama, and are so biased, that to report it would be to admit they were wrong IMO.

You must understand that Stanley Ann Dunham, left America to go to Kenya, then came back already pregnant, she was 17. When she returned to Hawaii, supposedly to deliver her baby (I don’t believe this happened), but for the sake of argument, lets say it did. She was not back in the US for 5 years AFTER her fourteenth birthday before she delivered the baby. She would have had to be 19, under U.S. rules.
So the baby, could not have been a US Citizen, natural Born.
The father was Kenyan as well, which is also a disqualifier. But say his father became a naturalized citizen, and the baby was born after returning from a trip abroad, because of Stanleys age, it disqualified the baby from US Citizenship. She could get a Certificate (Not Certification,big difference) of live birth, but it would say that he is Kenyan. Obamas sister has a COLB but it lists her birthplace as Indonesia, Obama’s would say Africa.

You must understand that Stanley Ann Dunham, left America to go to Kenya, then came back already pregnant, she was 17. .

Where's the evidence that Stanley went to Kenya at 17?

[Assuming she had Obama in the US,] She was not back in the US for 5 years AFTER her fourteenth birthday before she delivered the baby. She would have had to be 19, under U.S. rules.

The rules re: 5 years after 14 ONLY apply if a child was born outside the US. If the child was born inside the US, that rule is irrelevant. Therefore, IF Obama was born in the US, Stanley's age at the time, and whether she left the country for any period of time, is irrelevant.

According to the relevant findings of Wong Kim Ark:

Child "A" is born in the US to a noncitizen parent, and is a citizen.

Child "B" is born in the US to citizen parents, and is a natural born citizen.

What trait(s) do child "A" and child "B" share?

They share:

- Citizenship

- Birth in the United States

What do they not share?

They do not share:

- Natural born citizenship

- Birth to citizen parents.

“Child A, born to “natural-born” citizens, is a natural born citizen.
Under Wong, Child B, born to non-citizen parents is just as much of a citizen as Child A.
Therefore, Child B is a “natural-born citizen” just as much as Child A is.”

Child A = 1/2” wrench
Child B = 3/4” wrench
Child B is as much a wrench as Child A
The only problem is that the bolt has a 1/2” head.

Wong was a much a ‘citizen’ as a NBC. Not as ‘Natural Born” as a Natural Born Citizen

I fail to understand why you are so willing to submit to UK (or English law) over US law. Are you a huge UN fan in favor of international law usurping US law?

I don’t care a fig what UK law says about citizenship. I don’t care if Cuba declares me (or my father) a “natural born citizen” of Cuba. I was born here, and and a citizen here. Period. I was born here and am subject to the laws and Constitution of this nation alone as long as I am here.

I am really curious why all the birthers are so willing to subject themselves to international law, the musings of a pre-constitutional Swiss philosophers and other concepts that are completely alien to our concept of national sovereignty.

I don’t care if Parliment declares me the King of England, I am a natural born citizen of the US, and no other nation or international body except OUR COUNTRY has the right to say otherwise.

It’s almost like the birthers want to appeal to the UN or the Hague. Even those who believe 0bama was born in Hawaii think these international opinions merit discussion. Think about what you are saying, please.

As I have said before: there is enough to hate about 0bama to not have to make stuff up.

Does it? I don’t see where it is explicit.

I searched the text of the Constitution, and it does contain the word “natural born citizen”, but not “native born citizen”. So no clear distinction can be made.

Also, though I am loathe like all the amendments that came after the bill of rights, the 14th did change the the definition of citizen, so an appeal to the founders is moot.

It would be like appealing to the founders about whether women can vote. It doesn’t matter what the founders thought (they probably would have unanimously objected), they put in a way to amend the constitution and new “founders” impact that part of our law. The founding fathers have no bearing on what the 19th amendment means except to ensure it was properly ratified.

I know I probably have few fans here as a non-birther, but nothing makes me more upset than seeing conservatives usurp the Constitution (not the be confused with the Founders in at least 27 cases!). The Constitution and its amendments are pretty clear, we shouldn’t make stuff up about them.

That is nowhere in the Wong Kim holding. And it is consistent not only with Wong Kim, but also with:

Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218 (1897) (equating citizenship by birth in US with natural born citizenship);

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) (equating "native born citizenship" (by birth in US) with natural born citizenship): "Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.");

Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920) (equating citizenship by birth in US with natural born citizenship: "It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of [Chinese parents], born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchan....");

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (equating citizenship by birth in US with natural born citizenship: "The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants ... declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.");

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) (equating "native born" citizenship (by birth in US) with natural born citizenship: ""We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.")

... and multiple additional federal and state cases on the subject.

Both native and natural born are born in the United States, Sibre Fan. And yet, they are not entirely the same. That much is obvious because the terminology is not the same.

As shown at links to Supreme Court Cases that I just posted above, this statement is just inaccurate under existing law.

There are multiple cases in which the Supreme Court directly equates "native born" with "natural born" and there is NO case (that has not since been overturned or abrogated by statute) that draws the distinction you wish to impose.

Please, please, please: don’t let Leo Donofrio do your strategizing for you.

The cert issue is the key to resolving his issue, as I’ve tried to explain several times.

The cert issue is the one that the MSM has consistently lied about.

If I got any help at all pointing out those lies, the MSM could be shamed into offering real coverage of this issue.

Pointing out those lies would strike right at the heart of the MSM’s coverage of this issue and reveal them for what they are. And, all of that would be completely based in easy-to-understand, indisputable facts, not speculation. And, it would serve to improve coverage of those areas too, like immigration.

It’s called leverage, and someone needs to explain that to Donofrio and his followers.

“The listed COLB was from FactCheck, not from the Obama Admin. to begin with.”

No. Factcheck posted images of the document provided by the Obama campaign.

There have never been any Hawaiian Government Officials that have verified the Certification of Live Birth as shown on Fact Check’s website matches the one on file with the Hawaiian Department of Health. Again, all the Hawaiian Officials have stated is that Mr. Obama has a valid vital record on file in accordance with the Hawaiian laws.

This is what you saw...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Forensic Document analysis:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12993.htm
and
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/
and More information showing two independent Forensic Document experts say its bogus.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm

“Next the words from Hawaii were parsed, they were lawyerized, they never stated they had the long form birth certificate, just that they had the origonal COLB. We know that in 1961, there were 4 different ways to get a Certification (not Certificate) of Live birth, and 3 of those 4 ways do not involve being born in the Hawaiian Islands. I can provide links for them refuting each item I specified if you can’t find them.”

You are repeating birther distortions. None of them make the existing COLB go away, or change the fact that it says he was born in Honolulu.

There are serious questions as to the Associated Press, Honolulu’s recent statements that Dr. Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health stated she has verified Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. If you recall October 31, 2008 and early November 2008, this same paper, AP, Honolulu ran an article stating Dr. Fukino and Hawaii Governmental Officials had in fact verified that Barack H. Obama was born in Hawaii. This is completely false, if you look at Dr. Fukino’s Press Release dated October 31, 2008, no where is it stated Barack H. Obama was born in Hawaii or that any person verified that he was born in Hawaii. Instead, what it stated was Dr. Fukino along with the Hawaiian Registrar had verified Barack H. Obama’s birth certificate was on file according to the laws of Hawaii. At no time prior to AP Honolulu’s July 28, 2009 story, which is questionable, has any Hawaii Official, including Linda Lingle, backed up the claim that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

"Both parents must be US citizens at the childs birth and the child must be born on US soil or equivilent or the child is not a Natural Born Citizen."

No, and you have no legal basis for such a claim.

"Wong says “as much a citizen” it doesn’t say “as natural born” YOU are wrong."

The "as much" it refers to is a natural born citizen, so that hardly helps you out.

More importantly, Wong makes it absolutely clear that being born in the US is enough. The passages have been posted. Read them.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

But she left the United States with Obama in Kenya, and that is where she got pregnant, then came back to the US, so she did leave the US, which started the clock all over, and was not back in the US 5 years before the birth.
Its US law.

g. a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its
outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a
citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was
physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a
period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which
were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods
of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States,
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

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.