Posted on 09/23/2015 10:18:47 PM PDT by Ray76
Trump has been attacked because he did not denounce a person in New Hampshire who questioned Obama’s background, yet here is Mathews saying the exact same thing as the questioner.
Trump didn’t ask the question, the person in the audience did and that person echos Chris Mathews statements.
If Trump is attacked for not denouncing the questioner, why not attack the questioner? Why not attack Mathews for saying the same thing as the questioner? Why attack Trump for something he did not say?
Yes that’s correct. Stanley Ann Dunham would not have qualified. She would have been three months too young. She was born on November 29th and her son was born on August 4th. She would have needed to be 19 and she was 18 and 9 months.
But the state of Hawaii says that he was born there, so the point is moot.
It's not clear what about the age-residency requirement you find objectionable. Congress is determining under what conditions a child born abroad is granted citizenship at birth. Requiring the U.S. parent (of of "mixed" nationality couple) to have spent a stated amount of time in the U.S. after that person has attained what might be called an "age of reason" (high school age) seems related to the goal of assuring the child has a parent who has a grasp of the meaning of U.S. citizenship.
This particular element of the law has not, to my knowledge, been challenged. But in related contexts, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld challenges to post-citizenship residency requirements (Rogers v. Bellei (1971)) and to rules for out-of-wedlock births which make citizenship for the child more stringent when the U.S. parent is a male than when the parent is female. (Nguyen v. INS (2001)).
Except the state of Hawaii does not OFFICIALLY say he was born there. Various state officials assert he was born there, but that tiny little thing called "Proof" has never been provided, and indeed they absolutely and categorically REFUSE to provide the proof.
Their statements and assertions do not constitute any compelling evidence of where he was born, it's just that people who wish to regard it as proven accept them at face value instead of being intellectually honest about it.
In 2009, the state Health Director issued a press release which stated:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Under Hawaii state law, the state’s issuance of a Certified Certificate of Live Birth is “Prima Facie Evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
There has never been a court proceeding that denied prima facie evdence status to the Obama birth record.
Additionally the state has issued 3 Certfied Letters of Verification for the Obama birth vital record under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3. In all three cases, the Certified Letters of Verification were accepted as proof of place of birth by two states’ Chief Election officials and also by a U.S. District Court Judge in Mississippi.
Also the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged Obama’s birth in Hawaii in House Res. 593 of the 111th Congress on a vote of 378-0.
Finally, Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution mandates “Full Faith and Credit” for the records of any state by every other state. Over the last eight years, no other state and no action by the federal government has denied full faith and credit to the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama.
Indeed. I think anyone who isn't looking at this with an agenda would conclude that a verification made pursuant to statutory provisions enacted for verification of vital records facts constitutes an "Official" act in establishment of the birth fact.
The statements issued --
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
-- coupled with the reference to the "original Certificate of Life Birth" used in completing the verification request, are as direct and succinct as one could possibly make them.
Under Hawaii law a judge can order release of the original birth certificate for inspection and since Congressional Subpoenas have the legal force of a judge’s court order, an investigative committee of either House of Congress could issue a subpoena for the original birth certficate for inspection; but Congress hasn’t been interested.
If anyone wanted to try to impeach the statements issued by Hawaii officials, those current and former officials could be deposed under oath or called to testify under oath in a court of law, before a Grand Jury or before a committee of Congress.
Since the Matthews statement was back in 2008, I would have to go back and see if there was any fall out over it.
You need to look at the wording of the verification and the Hawaii law on letters of verification.
First the law:
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
Then from the certified letter of verification sent to SoS Bennett.
“A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Even if this was an adoption birth certificate the place of birth would not change.
And the Bennett letter of verification goes on to verify that the Hospital was “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and no this could not be the hospital that he was taken days or weeks after he was born and examined.
The hospital’s name is part of the birth certificate form item 6.
6a - Place of Birth, City, Town or Rural Location
6b - Island
6c - Hospital or Institution (if not in hospital or institution give street address)
6d - Inside or outside city limits
True. But the "big picture" view here, as you well know, means that there's little reason for anyone in a decision-making position to have reason to question the Hawaiian officials' statements affirming Obama's Hawaiian birth. Such statements are consistent with near all of the documentary evidence as to Obama's birth (the newspaper announcements, INS and State Dept. files, the Indonesian school application, 1990 newspaper articles, etc.)
Apart from the 1991 agency bio, there is precious little documentary evidence suggesting a non-Hawaiian birth. (And in light of the national publications the year prior all reporting an Hawaiian birth, it's not credible to think the agency piece was other than the error the agency has acknowledged.)
The great preponderance of the evidence points to birth having been in Hawaii. The COLB, Long-form, and Hawaiian verifications are simply the more formal and official items of proof.
A lack of documentary evidence has not stopped those in the “Ineligbility Movement” from pursuing their mission.
Regardless of the issue, there are usually prosecutors who use the grand jury process to go on investigative “fishing expeditions.” If you put people under oath and in front of a panel of average American citizens, strange thngs sometimes can happen.
Frankly, I’ve been shocked that there has never been an Obama/natural born citizen Grand Jury or a congressional inquiry.
I was reacting to the statement in Comment #74 that Obama’s mother wouldn’t have been eligible in 1961 because she was 18 year, 9 months, rather than 19. Most people graduate from high school at the age of 18, not 19. Also, if I remember correctly, 18 year olds (mostly males) were eligible to die in combat at age 18.
In your opinion what would be a better way of determining Citizen of the United States At Birth status for a child born abroad?
The law today says that only two of the required five years of residence in the U.S. for the citizen parent have to be after the age of 14.
“...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...”
They have never said "This is Barack Obama's original Birth Certificate". They keep saying "Or an abstract of the record in our files." Which means that it can be completely fake and based on whatever has subsequently been placed in their files.
What you consistently refuse to address is the fact that there is always a liars out. They never say anything with out wiggle room to allow for a fake.
Till they commit to an unequivocal statement that cannot be parsed to allow for any other conclusion, I have no interest in their assertions, and I likewise have no interest in the fact that you keep bringing them up as if they actually prove something.
I have no doubt that a Hawaiian Birth certificate would INDICATE that someone might have been born in Hawaii, but INDICATE does not have the same meaning as the word "Prove" or "Demonstrate", it means "Might be."
Given that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people who were not actually born in Hawaii, this "Indicate" word has even less meaning as proof than it would in a state that does not do this very weird thing.
Even if this was an adoption birth certificate the place of birth would not change.
And how do we know that this is true? I certainly do not know that this is true. What proof do we have that a state which issues birth certificates to people who were not actually born in that state, will not also fudge the place of birth in the case of adoptions?
And the Bennett letter of verification goes on to verify that the Hospital was “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” and no this could not be the hospital that he was taken days or weeks after he was born and examined.
Up to a year, last time I checked the Hawaiian law on the topic. And Yes, wherever he is examined, can be listed as the place of birth, and whomever the doctor was that examined can be listed as the attending physician at birth.
Hawaiian law allows for lots of fudging of vital statistics details. There are those who assert this is by intent, because after World War II, Hawaii became a processing house for back door American Citizenship for the entire pacific rim.
When you claim any child born on a ship in route to Hawaii, it gives you a lot of leeway to make any child an American Citizen if people want it bad enough.
"Prove" is a legal conclusion. A fact witness doesn't give opinion on a point of law. Here, Onaka, a custodian of records, is verifying what the Hawaii vital records state as to a given event. The Hawaii statutes provide the legal conclusion as to proof:
"(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."
Given that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people who were not actually born in Hawaii,
And as concerns Obama, your support for this assertion is . . . what?
Misleading how?
Other than that Chris Matthews doesn’t come within miles of “reporting” that Obama was born in Indonesia, it’s barely misleading at all.
Why are you complaining here? If you don’t like the title of the article then complain to the website that wrote the article and it’s title.
No need to complain.
I’ll just assume that everything else you post is crap too.
I’ll assume you’re a crank.
Have a day.
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.