Posted on 06/09/2008 5:44:28 PM PDT by inkling
Here's an odd Obama controversy I hadn't yet heard about. Apparently, the Lamb of Chicago has not released his Hawaii birth certificate despite several media requests. Jim Geraghty thinks it would end several persistent rumors concerning his birth.
Although Geraghty makes some good points, Exurban League's research interns have uncovered several reasons Obama is keeping it under wraps.
Top Ten Reasons Obama Won't Release His Birth Certificate
10. Despite the claims of his supporters, it was not technically a virgin birth.
9. Full name is Ayatollah Mubarack Hussein Obama-Khomeni bin Laden.
8. Actual birth date would reveal he's a Virgo, and those people are %#&*@! CRAZY.
7. Accidentally shredded it while going through his Rezko mortgage records.
(Excerpt) Read more at exurbanleague.com ...
actually I did hear that his full name is Barack Hussein Mohammed (sp?) Obama. I don’t remember where I saw this, but has anyone else heard this?
If Senator Obama were not an American citizen, wouldn't his political opponent have raised the issue in Illinois? After all, this is not the first election Obama has stood for.
I do not know, but if she got aid for him one would think she would have to produce a BC. He has a BC, he just does not want us to see what is on it.
Now THAT’S Very Interesting....
People need to get their panties untwisted and also need to learn how to google. His mother was born in Wichita, Kansas (Nov 27, 1940) to Stanley Armour DUNHAM who was born on 23 March 1918 in Kansas and died 8 February 1992 in Honolulu and Madelyn Lee PAYNE who was born in 1922 in Wichita, Kansas. She currently lives in Oahu, Hawaii. She is as American as apple pie as are her parents and grandparents. Obama himself was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawai'i. Two years after Hawai'i became a state. He graduated from Columbia University (1983) - Major: Political Science (amazingly just like me and millions of other grads at the age of 1983-1961 = 22 years old)... He graduated from high school in 1979 at 18 not 20 as one would have to believe.
One can get a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth at: http://www.vitalchek.com/agency_locator.aspx?eventtype=birth assuming you want to spend $39 that the GOP must have decided to NOT spend.
Now, since we all know he has a United States passport because of the passport brouhaha that arose a few months ago, are we do assume that he gamed the State Department so he could become President?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.passport/index.html
Also, there are only two types of United States citizens.
Since Obama is a U.S. citizen and he was not naturalized... well, you all do the math.
Perhaps not in California, but we definitely need ID cards in Maryland! This is something you can press your county board of election to do. Perhaps poll watchers can be there to observe the process (though in Maryland polling places, the chief election judge can toss someone).
Indeed!
Actually, one cannot get a copy of his birth certificate by paying $39 to Vitalcheck. If you read the fine print, only certain individuals (generally, the individual or someone acting on his behalf) can request a birth certificate.
Doubt it was an arkancide, but it would make a good Shakespearean tale. You could have the real father be a mob guy who did the deed and have it be the start of a Macbeth style life. The real father then reappears at key points in young Billy's life, helping him with his political connections in Arkansas and in DC, and giving him his start. Maybe he even learns the ways of the mob under "Dad"'s tutelage, and that experience serves him well when it comes to state troopers, land deals, and the treeatment of witnesses.
This is still interesting though.
The story has it that the flight out of Kenya BO's parents were schedule to take was delayed and that he was born in Kenya as a result. After which his parents took the very next flight to Hawaii and had him registered.
It would be very interesting to see his original birth certificate to see if his full name isn't Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama as I've seen claimed elsewhere.
actually I did hear that his full name is Barack Hussein Mohammed (sp?) Obama. I don’t remember where I saw this, but has anyone else heard this?
"His True Name Is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2015093/posts
Well most of what Congress does is unconstitutional anyway, at least as far as I figure. They outsource virtually all of their mandate including the ability to declare war. If they knew he was not eligible they would say “so what, everyone does it, its his own personal business, unless he does something wrong what’s the harm, we’ll form a blue ribbon committee to decide for us... yada yada yada”
No we don’t out here...we wouldn’t want to deny someone a right they don’t have.
I hope you’re writing this all dow....
Oh, silly me! Of course you are!
;-)
US constitutional definition
The United States Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen”; however, it does confer on Congress the power: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“ 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. ”
Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
[edit] US presidential candidates born outside the US
“The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country’s borders, and whether they have the same rights.”[1] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.[2], a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[3]
Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born outside the United States.[4]
George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney’s parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the presumptive Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the U.S. military base Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents.[5]
[edit] US legislation and legal arguments
The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”[6][7] This was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case as a form of naturalization.[8] The Dred Scott case, however, was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens “by birth,” or whether they should all be considered to be “naturalized.” There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens “at birth” and citizens “by birth” since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term “at birth.” Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as “citizens at birth.”[9] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a “natural born citizen,” a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen “by law” and is therefore “naturalized.”[10] Current State Department policy reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”[11] However, this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth.[12]
[edit] US case law
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of “natural born citizen,” there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the “natural born citizen” clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who “are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity” is automatically a citizen.
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court’s ruling was based have changed since 1927.)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. “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.”
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Notice that they were unable to check Obama’s birth record. So that’s at least twice that he refused to allow access to it.
They checked his marriage document and a number of others, but it’s perfectly possible to change you name on such documents, legally or often casually.
Also, his first name originally was not Barack but Baraka, which means sanctified or holy in Arabic, i.e., “Holy Hussein.”
So this does NOT disprove that story, which missionaries in Kenya might have gotten from his family before they were instructed to change their accounts to reporters.
We know that Barack’s step grandmother told reporters that the family was Muslims before she later started telling them they were Christians—presumably on Barack’s instructions.
So, I don’t know for sure if it’s true, but this does not disprove the story, as it claims to do.
Incidentally, Kenyan missionaries were also pooh-poohed for saying that Barack’s cousin Odinga’s followers murdered Christians. But that is well known to be true, it’s just not something the press likes to remember or connect the dots on.
That story is over at anti-mullah
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-this-hillarys-october-surprise.html
Which has him being whisked to HI immediately after birth as his mother wasn’t permitted to fly so late in her pregnancy.
No question she is ready to replace the shoe; should it drop. Am just wondering what kind of deal she/they made; what it took - or what she took - for her to utter praise for Obama. Am sure she wanted to wash her mouth out with soap; when finished. . .
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.