Hawaiian officials admit withholding Obama's original BC

Now it's pretty apparent why Barack Obama made his sudden, last minute visit to Honolulu. It wasn't Granny's health problems that interested him but Hawaii's Health Department.

The strategy may have backfired. A statement by Hawaiian officials Friday that they have seen but won't release an "original" birth certificate that has never been released raises more questions than it answers. It undercuts the indignant claims of Obama spokesmen and supporters that the "birth certificate" has been published for months, and the ridicule and claims of "smear" that the Obama camp has made against anyone claiming otherwise.

Image: the "certification of live birth" claimed by Obama campaign as his "birth certificate"

According to an AP report, Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday that she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Conspicuously, Hawaiian officials refuse to confirm that the information on the "original" certificate conforms to what has appeared on the "Certification of Live Birth" produced in 2007 that has so far been passed off as original by the Obama "Fight the Smears" site (here) and the Annenberg-backed site FactCheck.org (here). The latter dedicated a photoshoot to examining in pornographic detail a computer-generated facsimile that may bear no relation to the original document that the State of Hawaii now admits holding.

All of the obfuscation, which has been going on for more than four months, begs the question that the Obama campaign and its media supporters have steadfastly refused to answer: why won't the original birth certificate be released?

Why can't the Obama campaign do as the McCain campaign did, and release the original, typewritten document that the State of Hawaii, finally and in the last days before the election, admits exists in its "vaults"? What could be so damaging or contradictory that Obama has felt the need to keep hidden all these years and has created elaborate cover-ups to put forward computer-abstracted certification of live certificate instead of the original birth certificate?

Fukino says that no state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's birth certificate be handled differently. But state officials, including Lingle's office, have consistently refused media requests for the release of the document, saying that only Obama himself, or a close family number, was authorized to have access to the "original" certificate. She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

And yet Obama claimed in his memoir Dreams from my Father that he had in his possession his birth certificate. Unless the document has been "lost," he could publish the original without visiting grandma in Honolulu.

Trumpeting victory in Hawaii's admission that a suppressed "original" birth certificate exists is Chicago-based journalist Andy Martin, a long time nemesis of Obama, whose trip to Hawaii preceded the candidate's. (Obama arrived just as Martin left). Martin takes credit for forcing the State's hand in a press release:

Obama has falsely claimed to have placed the "original" on the Internet. Factcheck.org has falsely claimed to have seen this document and posted it on the Internet; that is not true. CNN has falsely ridiculed Martin. Hawai'i officials have now refuted Obama's false assertion.

Martin's victory in Honolulu will roil the final weekend of the presidential campaign. Internet chatter is expected to explode as the issue moves to the front page over Saturday and Sunday. Swing voters may be swayed by the exposure that Obama has brazenly been lying to the American people. "We just lobbed a grenade into the final weekend of the presidential campaign," says Andy.

"I am ecstatic. I called Obama a liar. I called Factcheck.org 'ObamaLies.org.' I said CNN was sloppy and lazy and wrong. And I was right. The State of Hawai'i has now backed me up. Whew. I knew I was right, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that I have started to get the machinery moving in state government. The original document is now obviously protected and safe from any tampering by Obama.

"My lawsuit started a firestorm in Hawai'i. The circuit judge has set a hearing for November 18th (a report in the Honolulu Advertiser for November 1st for an earlier hearing date of November 7th is inaccurate; that date was cancelled).

"CNN also has egg on its face, because, once again, Hawai'i backs my contention that the original document has never surfaced in public. CNN tried to demean me by contradicting my accurate claim.

"Now Obama, Factcheck.org and CNN have been exposed as liars. I said there was a 'secret,' original, typewritten birth certificate that had never been disclosed, and that document was the original COLB, not the phony 'original' that CNN placed before its viewers.

Martin, who has advanced the theory that the candidate has suppressed the original certificate because it would show that his father is not in fact Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., claims that Frank Marshall Davis -- a high profile Communist and journalist that Obama II referred to in his memoirs only as "Frank" -- is in fact Obama's father.

Martin has a court date in Hawaii on his demand to release the original birth certificate in the public interest scheduled for November 18, 2008. He has scheduled a press conference for today

"Also, if a child is born to parents who are both US citizens and say traveling, working, or studying abroad, then that child is considered a natural born citizen."

Not according to the US State Department Foreign Affairs Manual:

7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents

7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998).

It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

7 FAM 1130 Page 8 of 103

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs

7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization” (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth." Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act.

7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103

You cannot be a natural born citizen, if you were not born on US soil. Children born on overseas military bases are not natural born citizens. Current State Department policy reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. deplomatic or consular facilites 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.”
The US Constitution Article ll section 1. It says “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constituion, shall be eligible to the Office of President; niether shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fouteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Many people get this all wrong too. It says “No Person except a natural born Citizen” - “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”. Many people misread this line and think that any citizen can be President, but what it was saying is either a natural born Citizen OR any citizen who was alive at the time the Constitution was adopted. Unless you know of any candidates that are 256 years old, the President must be a Natural Born Citizen.

"Obama is not a natural born citizen, because his father was not a US citizen. His father was a British subject and because of that Obama was born a subject of the Crown and later became a citizen of Kenya. Even if he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was old enough to pass US citizenship on to him, he would still only be a citizen-not a natural born citizen. "

US citizenship can pass through either parent. Being born in the US is sufficient in and of itself regardless of the citizenship of your parents. That's the "what and why" of anchor babies. The laws regarding citizenship at birth have changed over time. The statute at the time of 0's birth, the one that would apply, was this:

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"(7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

The specific facts that determine 0's citizenship are where and when was he born? He claims to have been born in HI on August 4, 1961. The date is not in dispute, but the location is. At the time of 0's birth his mother was 18 years 8 months 6 days old. That means that at the time of 0's birth, discounting all the travel time outside of the US, the maximum time she could have resided in the US after the age of 14 was 4 years 8 months 6 days. That she was a citizen at the time is not disputed. That the father was an alien from Kenya, and a British subject, is not disputed. The dispute is as to the location of 0's birth. If he was born in Kenya then he was not a citizen because his citizen parent (mother) did not meet the residency requirements.

Now, as to whether he is natural born or not, the Constitution only distinguishes two types of citizen: naturalized or natural born. If you are born a citizen you are natural born, if you, at some point after you were born, had to go through a process to become a citizen, you are naturalized. There is no third "born a citizen but not natural born" category. There is no Constitutional basis for it. There is no basis in law. It doesn't exist.

"So you can see that the founders did not allow dual citizenship, for even a naturalized citizen."

The founders did not allow naturalized citizens to have dual citizenship - they wanted new citizens to commit fully or not at all. It has no bearing on natural born citizens, else dual citizenship for any US citizens would be impossible and that is certainly not the case. The 1952 statute makes no reference to dual citizenship at all. The US law doesn't care what other nations might consider you a citizen, for the most part, but expects you to renounce any foreign allegiance upon reaching adulthood (some other countries do not, Canada, for instance). We have no evidence that 0 did or did not renounce his British citizenship, but there is no formal or official process that I am aware of so we can't dispute it. Further, there is no requirement that you remain a citizen, only that you be born a citizen, so if 0 is hiding a change of citizenship he isn't violating the Constitution (except in spirit) in that regard.

Really, the only disputed factor is where he was born. HI=natural born US citizen, Kenya=British subject at birth.

If you look at the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790, it states “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. So we can learn from this that you have to be the child of US citizens, to be a natural born citizen. Now that law was repealed and replaced by the The Naturalization Act of 1795 which now stated that “the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as “citizen of the United States.” “This act, signed into law by George Washington himself, dropped the “natural born” phrase. So from this we can see the only way you can be a natural born citizen, is to be born to US citizens on US soil.

"I would sue the DNC for fraud and move to have the election invalidated."

You might have a case against the DNC if you could prove intent, but the election would not be invalidated. There is a Constitutional remedy for an unqualified President elect. Depending on when this finally gets resolved we get:

1) Anybody Qualified/Biden (BHO disqualified before the EC AND the Electors pick someone who is eligible, faithless elector laws not withstanding)

2) McCain/Biden (Obama's electors are challenged in the Joint Session and the House is forced to choose McCain as the only other Electoral Vote receiving candidate)

3) Nobody/Biden (as in 2 above but the House refuses to choose McCain - they just sit on their hands. There is no time limit to the process once the election goes to the House. Biden would be Acting President until the House chooses or a new election (2012) provides a qualified President and/or VP.)

4) Biden/? (Obama makes it all the way to the White House but gets impeached after being found ineligible)

5) Obama/Biden (he is eligible)

6) Civil War (Obama is exposed as ineligible and nobody in government does anything about it so we march on Washington)

The above scenarios do not include Biden or anyone other than Obama being implicated in the fraud.

Now that law was repealed and replaced by the The Naturalization Act of 1795 which now stated that “the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as “citizen of the United States.” “This act, signed into law by George Washington himself, dropped the “natural born” phrase. So from this we can see the only way you can be a natural born citizen, is to be born to US citizens on US soil.

"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

The Constitution identifies only two types of citizen, naturalized or natural born. If you were born a citizen you are natural born. If you became a citizen at some point after birth, you a a naturalized citizen. There is plenty of precedent - John McCain, George Romney, millions of children born to servicemen stationed overseas. Are you prepared to claim that a child of an illegal immigrant that just happened to have been smuggled across the border in its mother's womb the day before being born CAN become POTUS and the children of members of the Armed Forces who happen to be born where ever their parents happen to be stationed overseas by their own government CANNOT? You are quoting a State Department manual to support this position? There is no third class of citizen "born a citizen but not natural born". No such distinction is made in the Constitution or in actual law. The applicable and pertinent law has already been posted. The US State Department Foreign Affairs Manual is not law.

That means that you can't just sneak onto a US base and drop an anchor baby. Children born to US citizens are US citizens by birth because their parents or parent (with very limited exceptions that just might happen to apply to 0) were US citizens when the child was born. See the 1952 Statute cited above.

The US Constitution Article ll section 1. It says “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constituion, shall be eligible to the Office of President; niether shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fouteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Many people get this all wrong too. It says “No Person except a natural born Citizen” - “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”. Many people misread this line and think that any citizen can be President, but what it was saying is either a natural born Citizen OR any citizen who was alive at the time the Constitution was adopted. Unless you know of any candidates that are 256 years old, the President must be a Natural Born Citizen.

I am quite clear on the distinction. Whether 0 is a citizen now isn't even relevant, only whether he was at birth.

If you look at the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790, it states “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. So we can learn from this that you have to be the child of US citizens, to be a natural born citizen. Now that law was repealed and replaced by the The Naturalization Act of 1795 which now stated that “the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as “citizen of the United States.” “This act, signed into law by George Washington himself, dropped the “natural born” phrase. So from this we can see the only way you can be a natural born citizen, is to be born to US citizens on US soil.

That is an incorrect conclusion. There is absolutely no basis for it. Please refer to the The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952 and please provide a citation that explicitly declares what you claim to be true that actually has the force of law. Since there are two and only two Constitutional classes of citizenship it seems clear to me that being born a citizen is the same as being a natural born citizen and the lawmakers never felt there would be a need to clarify it further. Furthermore, if you or anyone else can provide a citation that contradicts my position explicitly I will be happy to see it since it makes the case against 0 that much stronger (even though we would get Biden instead).

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.