Posted on 04/25/2011 9:19:23 PM PDT by MrTim29
This past weekend millions of Americans celebrated Easter, a day filled with colored eggs and chocolate bunny rabbits… otherwise known as the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Something else that rose from the dead this weekend was the issue of President Obama’s birth certificate. On Saturday morning, the Associated Press released an article titled, “In Hawaii, Accessing Some Obama Birth Info Is Easy,” in which the author suggests that that just about anyone can walk into Hawaii’s vital records office and see Obama’s birth certificate information, or someone with a tangible interest could pay $10 to receive a copy of the Obama’s certification of live birth. According to the author of the article, problem solved… everyone who suggests otherwise is a crazy “birther,” right? Well, not so fast there Associated Press…
I am so tired of arguing with uneducated people on the facts of this topic, that I decide that I would compile the information in an easy to use format.
TOPIC: Who are Birthers? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Conspiracy theorists, Tea Party activists, crazy Republicans WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Skeptics over President Barack Obama’s citizenship FACT: People, of all political backgrounds, who believe that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States based on questions surrounding his citizenship
TOPIC: Where did the Birther movement begin? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: From rumormongers, prior to the 2008 election, who were disappointed that Americans were not buying that Obama was Muslim, so they assigned his place of birth as questionable in order to sway the election. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: They can’t necessarily point to where the movement began. According to polling data, Republicans initially did not question Obama’s birth status; however, as time has marched on more Republicans are beginning to question his status. The latest New York Times-CBS News poll found that 45% of adult Republicans said they believe Obama was born in another country, and 22% said they don’t know. Only one-third of Republicans said they believe the president is native born. The same poll a year ago found that a plurality of Republicans believed the president was born in the U.S. FACT: Obama’s birth certificate initially became an issue during the Democratic Primary in early 2008 when Hillary Clinton supporters, from a blog called The Blue State, began questioning Obama’s eligibility to be President.
TOPIC: Obama has made public his birth certificate. WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama said, “I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama is not showing his real birth certificate FACT: Hawaii has two ways to “prove” citizenship. One way is by producing the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, which is the short form computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth that can be printed out at any time. The other way of proving citizenship is by producing a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, which is the long form original birth certificate document produced at the time of birth with the name of the hospital, hand written dates, signatures of the doctor, the registrar, the director of health, and the state registrar. Obama has not produced his Certificate of Live Birth.
TOPIC: Why does Obama’s birth place even matter? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The question is moot because he was born in Hawaii. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama is not qualified for the presidency because he is not a ”natural-born” citizen. Furthermore, his father had British/Kenyan citizenship. FACT: As per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution it states, “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…” A naturalized citizen, whether naturalized “at birth” or after birth, is not so eligible. In other words, anyone who is born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens, is definitely, without doubt, a natural born citizen. Therefore, Obama would 100% be required to be born in the United States in order to be eligible for President.
TOPIC: Obama’s true birthplace WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama was born in Hawaii WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia FACT: According to the Certification of Live Birth, Hawaii has Obama in their system as being born in Honolulu. Because of Hawaii’s permeable system, many foreign born people and/or relatives of foreign born people sought and received U.S. citizenship via Hawaiian birth certificates up until 1972. Until the actual Certificate of Live Birth is produced and inspected, nobody can say with 100% certainty they know where Obama was born… not even Barack himself.
TOPIC: The Nordyke Twins born a day later than Obama, received lower file numbers WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The Nordyke twins got lower lower number because they possibly took longer to deliver than Obama. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Birth Certificates issued to the Nordyke twins shows their registrations number precedes the number given to Obama, even though Obama was born a day earlier. FACT: The birth certificates issued by Kapi’olani shows Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. However, Obama was given a higher registration number, No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, than the Nordyke twins, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. Although born a day later, Obama was entered into the system on August 8th whereas those born a day later were entered in the system on August 11th.
TOPIC: How did Obama get in Hawaii’s system? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama was born in Honolulu and a birth certificate was issued upon birth and entered into their system three days later. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Upon learning of his birth, Obama’s grandparents, who were living in Hawaii at the time, filled out an application, presented it to a representative to the Secretary of Hawaii and swore a witness testimony that he was born in the Honolulu. It was entered on August 8th. FACT: Due to the fact that the Hawaiian Islands are home to many Polynesian indigenous people whose customs and traditions did not include western medicine and hospitals, and the fact that many did not live in close proximity to hospitals, the state made it possible for those born in Hawaii to later obtain birth certificates. Unfortunately, this made it was possible for foreign born people to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate simply by submitting an Affidavit to the Office of the Secretary stating they were born in Hawaii. This was most famously done by Chinese born Sun Yat-Sen, who would later become the Founding Father of Republican China. This practice evolved and in 1911 became a law that allowed foreign born person to be registered as though they were born in Hawaii. All that was required was to simply fill out an application, be presented to a representative to the Secretary of Hawaii and have a witness testimony that could include family and friends. The practice continued until 1972. Obama is in the system either because he was actually born in Hawaii or his grandparents submitted an application on his behalf to the Secretary of Hawaii and swore a witness testimony that he was born in the Honolulu. Since Obama refuses to produce his Certificate of Live Birth for inspection, nobody can say with 100% certainty they know why Obama is in the system… not even Barack himself.
TOPIC: The two birth announcements in the newspapers WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Both of Honolulu’s manor newspapers, the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin, published announcements in August 1961 documenting Obama’s birth in Hawaii WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Birth announcements were probably submitted by Obama’s grandparents who knew that he would have a better life as a U.S. citizen than as a citizen of another country FACT: The Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin did publish announcements in August 1961 documenting Obama’s birth in Hawaii; however, these announcements were not submitted by the family, they were automatically issued whenever a certification of live birth was issued. Once Obama’s name was in the system, the birth announcement was issued, usually the same day by the Health Department via a news service. Additionally, the address for the birth announcement, which occurred three days later, was 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., an address that belonged to Obama grandparents.
TOPIC: A statement by the former Hawaii Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, confirms she has seen Obama’s birth certificate WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Dr. Chiyome Fukino is biased. Also, she is a medical doctor and does not have any forensic or legal experience. She issued a legal and factual opinion based on a document that may or may not be accurate FACT: The actual statement was, “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….” Dr. Fukino did not attest to seeing the actual Certificate of Live Birth, but rather Obama’s vital records. According to Governor Abercrombie in January 2011, the definition of “vital records” was reduced to an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not any type of birth certificate at all.
TOPIC: Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Fact checking websites like Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears state Obama has proved his citizenship WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears have a left wing bias FACT: The only thing Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears have proven is that Obama has produced a Certification of Live Birth, not the Certificate of Live Birth
TOPIC: Obama’s social security number, 042-68-4425 WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The zip code for Obama’s address in Honolulu was 96814. Danbury, CT is 06814. Keypunch error is a much more plausible explanation. Also, looking at the actual database entry for the 1890 date shows it associated with the building Obama lived in while at Harvard. It’s a building in Somerville built in 1890 WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama has never visited or been in Connecticut prior to campaigning for President, and as such it is impossible for him to have that social security number. If Obama was Hawaiian born, his social security number should start with 575 or 576 FACT: Obama social security number is in deed 042-68-4425. Other than the 1980 Selective Service registration, the first time Obama used the “042” number was in 1986 in Chicago. Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life. There is no record of Obama visiting the east coast until he was 20, in 1981
What can be derived from the facts? Certainly one thing… nobody knows where Obama was actually born. Anyone who says they know, whether they assert he was born in Kenya or whether they assert he was born in Hawaii, cannot with 100% certainty. Obama himself only knows what he’s told. What we do know with 100% certainty is that he is in Hawaii’s “system.” That’s it. End of story.
Is it plausible that Obama was born in a foreign country and his grandparents knew that he could attain a better life as an American citizen so they submitted an application on his behalf to the Secretary of Hawaii and swore a witness testimony that he was born in the Honolulu? Absolutely. Is it plausible that Obama was actually born in Honolulu and his stubbornness for not releasing his Certificate of Live Birth is for no good reason? Absolutely. The only thing that is certain is that until that Certificate of Live Birth is produced and inspected… anything is plausible.
So, thanks to the Associated Press, real estate tycoon Donald Trump, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, several state legislatures all across the country and Obama’s continued refusal to produce his Certificate of Live Birth the issue isn’t going away. In fact, it is gaining legitimacy. A book due out on May 17, 2011, titled Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President by Jerome R. Corsi promises blockbuster information based on “years of research and digging by the nation’s top private investigators” that will be devastating to those who believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
It’s the issue raised from the dead, and it might just give people something more to celebrate than colored eggs and chocolate bunnies in 2012.
First thing. The microfilms could very easily be forged. Very easy to do. Below you’ll read some info on microfilm production. Just be aware that although the type of film used to make service copies was changed in the 80’s, you can still get the vintage film. Even on Ebay.
The thing that my collection of copies proved beyond doubt is that the stories behind the “ORIGINAL DISCOVERIES” of obama’s newspaper birth announcement were absolutely false. Especially the first person that claimed to have gotten their “copy” at the HI State library in person. The copy they sent around could not have come from the film in that library. The copy that was supposedly emailed to “Lori Starfelt” could not have come from the film it was purported to be copied from. (By the way, it is said that Lori Starfelt died the day before Trump began speaking out about the birth certificate-and she was a filmmaker)
So, why were the stories made up if the films were on level?
We do know that when mothers check out of a hospital they are asked if they would like the announcement printed in the paper. Usually there is a little form that is checked off or signed. In addition, parents could then, and now, call in the info. In fact the Honolulu Star Advertiser still allows family to do that, just NOW A DAYS they claim to require that you provide documentary evidence of the birth before they will print the announcement. I’ll bet they didn’t back in 1961. Hell, I bet they didn’t require all that three years ago.
Butterdzillion did a better breakdown on the relationship between all of the “original discovered” announcements. It supports my findings-I did mail her second gen copies of all my original copies so she could do her own research with them.
This is just a little info on microfilms and how they are made:
1980s and 1990s
Kodak introduces polyester-based microfilm, which quickly becomes the new standard. The old “Kodak Safety Film”, which used an acetate base, had a giant drawback - the acetate begins to break down into acetic acid, otherwise known as vinegar syndrome.
Master Negative (also called:Camera or Archival or Original) The original microfilm taken directly from the microfilm camera. This is the generation that is considered for permanent archival storage.
This is the archival copy, which is used to produce a duplicate negative (see below) for the generation of use copies. The master negative should be stored in a different location from secondary copies and under conditions as close as possible to the ideal. The only subsequent use of the master negative should be the reproduction of a duplicate negative lost to damage or disaster.
Duplicate Negative (or Print-Master Negative)
This copy is almost always silver-gelatin. The duplicate negative is used to generate use copies (see below) for the collection. It should be stored under the best available conditions, since it serves as a working master, to protect the master negative. Ideally, it should be physically separated from use copies.
Use Copies (or Service Copies)
Any of the available media or formats may be acceptable, and images may be positive or negative. Good storage and handling will extend the life of use copies, thus protecting previous generations of microforms.
CNN shows the address at 2:40 in this report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhex83PJhFg
Does not look like a house. Media lies!!!
No - she understands like most people do that Obama is a NBC because he was born in America.
Now, I understand you feel differently, but please don’t be offended if I disagree. While no expert, I would be more willing to entertain the idea if a single conservative group like the The Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society agree with you. Your definition of NBC doesn’t appear to be accepted anywhere else except birther sites. Know I know you have elaborate conspiracy theories to explain that away, but that is another conversation.
Which is why the Registration Number and other info needs to be extracted from the COLB of Stig Waidelich,born August 1961, which was featured on CNN Propagana piece piece yesterday. The
It is barely readable on the internet video, but might be readable off a DVR of the telecast.
Whoa, James—you’re not even trying to hide it anymore. I admire your chutzpa.
I have no elaborate conspiracy theories. I just want to see some—preferably all—of Barry’s hidden records. I also realized that Fukino’s statement tells us exactly nothing; it is useless.
A statute, even an early one, cannot define or alter a phrase in the Constitution. Contrary to your assertions, the legal authority of the early years of this republic is quite clear that the phrase as used in the Constitution means and was intended to mean born in the United States of two parents both of whom are citizens of the United States. There is no majority of legal authority that the phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is identical in meaning with 14th Amendment citizenship. Can you cite any? The early statute to which you refere was quickly repealed, one of the reasons given being that it wrongly attempted to define and alter the Constitution.
Only if you ignore the distinction, very important to the Framers, between “subjects” of the crown and “citizens” of a republic.
What is the difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen?
What is the difference between a natural born citizen and the acquisition of citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis?
Being able to qualify to run for the Presidency of the United States.
Was John McCain qualified to run for the Presidency of the United States? Was Barry Goldwater qualified to run?
If you automatically become a citizen of this country by blood or place of birth and don't have to be naturalized, you are natural born IMO. The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.
Tell me, if you would be so kind, what is speculative about the Story opinion in Shanks v. Dupont.
McCain? In my opinion - no. Diplomats definitely are if they are serving the government in a different country. Military personnel.......only on a US possession.
Tell me, if you would be so kind, what is speculative about the Story opinion in Shanks v. Dupont.
We will see how relevant that case is to citizenship and Presidential eligibility under the Constitution. How do you view U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Afroyim v. Rusk as they relate to citizenship?
Here is the joint opinion of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson: McCain is eligible
Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
As far as Afroyim v. Rusk goes: it is entirely about 14th Amendment citizenship and the right of expatriation and has nothing whatsoever to do with the phrase "natural born citizen" as taken from the law of nations in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In fact the British took the position in the era between the Revolution and the War of 1812 that those seamen who had been British subjects before the Revolution could not expatriate themselves from British citizenship and on that basis were taking American seamen by force and impressing them into the Royal Navy, which was one of the causes of the securing of the Revolution in the War of 1812. We disagreed.
In Schneider v. Rusk the Supreme Court noted in passing that only the "natural born citizen" is eligible to be President under Article II in a discussion of 14th Amendment citizenship while not otherwise discussing the difference between "natural born" and native born. This would seem to leave the opinions by Marshall, Story and Waite standing. Again, given the history of the 14th Amendment there is no reason to speculate that it impacted the original meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's requirement. I do not believe that the argument that this mention in passing consisted of the Supreme Court equating native born citizenship to the phrase "natural born citizenship" is valid.
A citizen by statute.
A natural born Citizen would never require a statute be created to include them as a “class” of citizen.
He was a full citizen - a “native” citizen, created by a law passed to allow for his birth situation.
A citizen born of two US parents on US soil would never need such a statute. Simple as pie.
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.