Posted on 11/23/2008 6:30:41 PM PST by Red Steel
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.
But they won't say one word about what's on it.
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.
Can anyone smell "red herring"?
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.
Apparently that does not include the American People.
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
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. 2008 - 1787 = 221. You didn't have to be 35 at the time of the Adoption, just a citizen. James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison, Martin Van Buren and Zachary Taylor were all less than 35 at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, yet each was able to serve as President. But your basic point is valid - I don't know any candidates that are 221 years old. I'm just a NPB, that's all.
While the US prefers that you renounce other citizenships upon reaching your majority for duals, and requires it for naturalization, dual citizenships are pretty much ignored. There isn't any formal process that I am aware of. US law tends to be inclusive rather than exclusive - in other words, the burden of proof lies with those attempting to prove 0 is not a natural born citizen (the position I hold), rather than those claiming he is a natural born citizen. It is an either-or proposition - either he was born in the US or his parents collectively met certain citizenship and residency requirements. I maintain that neither was the case - his parents did NOT meet those requirements AND he was NOT (until he produces verifiable evidence to the contrary) born in the US. The first condition, that of his parents' respective status, is not in dispute. Only the second, the location of his birth is in dispute and that only because of the secrecy he maintains about it and some third party testimony. If it was just a matter of who his parents were he would have been stopped much, much sooner. I think he is hiding ALL of his records in order to protect one or two damning ones. The only reason to withhold any records now since he has won the popular election is to hide evidence of a crime in progress. He certainly wouldn't be impeached by a Rat infested Congress for getting a D in history (JFK did and he's an icon). Clinton perjured himself and committed treason while in office and look what happened to him. Nothing.
George Romney (Mexico), John McCain (Panama) and Lowell Weicker (France) were all born outside the US and nobody seriously challenged their status to run for President until now. John McCain has run numerous times. Don't you think a serious challenge would have occurred before this election cycle by rival candidates of both parties? All of this - ALL of it - is about obfuscating the issue so the rats can pull a fast one on the people. Either they get their pet Marxist/terrorist abettor into office or they create a crisis to exploit. Either way their agenda is furthered.
Definition of natural-born:
| Main Entry: | natural-born |
| Part of Speech: | adj |
| Definition: | having a specified characteristic or ability from birth; having the legal status of a citizen; having a position or status from birth; native-born; by virtue of one's nature, qualities, or innate talent: a natural-born musician. |
| Origin: | 1575-85 |
The statute in effect at the time of Obama's birth:
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.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."
| Obama's mother's birthdate: | November 29, 1942 |
| Obama's birthdate: | August 4, 1961 |
| Obama's mother's age when Obama was born: | 18 years 8 months 6 days. |
| Maximum amount of time Obama's Mama could have been resident in the US after the age of 14 and prior to Obama's birth: | 4 years 8 months 6 days |
| Obama's place of birth: | Hawai or Kenya - DISPUTED |
Constitutional requirements to become President:
"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."[Article II, Section 1]
Nowhere in the Constitution is natural-born redefined from the above definition which predates the Constitution by 200 years.
The definition of natural-born, having a specified characteristic or ability from birth, along with others having essentially the same meaning, is clearly the most appropriate and what the Founders meant, there is no other applicable definition.
Donofrio's and Berg's attempts to create a third type of citizen "born a citizen but not natural born" has no basis in the Constitution or in Law. All those might do is to help refine the question and bring the issue to the broader public's attention.
There are two, and only two types of citizen identified in the Constitution: natrural-born (having a specified characteristic or ability from birth) and naturalized (having confered upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.)
It DOES, however, let a foreign born be an advisor!
Well I understand it!
Is THAT infant now a legal, US Citizen?
It’s interesting that any old govt. employee can access Joe the Plumbers info, why can’t some patriot in Hawaii come up with obamma lamma ding dongs info?
They’d become a hero.
I smell a rotten dead fish. Does that count?
Yes you can.
Because he was born in Hawaii.
Naturalization laws were changed dozens of times between 1795 and 1961.
Go ask for mine - the City of New York is withholding it.
That's what the law requires of them.
.... and for one to serve as President, they must provide proof of eligibility such as an original birth certificate (as we had to do to join the military).
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
This act ALSO made it possible for an American girl to go abroad, have her illegitimate child in some convent somewhere, then RETURN with the baby.
The reforms allowed permanent Japanese immigrant residents to apply for citizenship (their kids had been off fighting the Nazis, et al), and cleaned up some national security problems.
People who are embarassed by "illegitimacy" (the pro-abortionists for example), who don't like Japanese-Americans, and who adhere to the Communist cause don't think that act reformed anything.
Oh, yeah, and the gays didn't like it.
I think that was the last time anyone got a "comprehensive immigration reform" package through Congress!
Good catch.
Apparently they don't happen to be working for the Departments with access.
An assertion of Michelle Obama that grows more dubious every day.
The anchor baby argument that someone posted earlier is total bunk. The 14th Amendment states "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. "What the state departments is saying is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities. In other words, ANYONE (not just anchor babies) born in one of these, installations or facilities, does not become a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. These installations or facilities are not US soil, and those born there are not natural born citizens. Other immigration laws need to be applied for citizenship, but there is no immigration law that grants natural born citizenship. You must be born of 2 US citizen parents within the borders of the USA to be a natural born citizen. Also speaking of the 14th Amendment, which Obama claims makes him a citizen, note again that is says "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.” Obama was born a SUBJECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, and therefore was not a citizen of the United States.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part ll, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom, Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963....
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
The 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Untied States.
Obama was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was a Subject of the United Kingdom. A ‘natural born citizen’ would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States.
Also in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, states that “The Congress shall have Power....To establish an uniform Rule of Naturaliztion...”
The Naturalization Acts of 1790, and 1795 were the first Rules of Naturalization handed down by Congress. So there were 3 classes of citizenship in the Constitution.
1. There were Natural Born Citizens- the Children of Citizens born within the United States and never subject to the Jurisdiciton of any other nation. Only Citizens from this pol can be President or Vice president.
2. Citizens which included the founders themselves, of which many were at one time Subject to the Jurisdiction of any other nations. Also included in this pool were the children of US citizens that were born outside the borders of the United States, and children that were born to Citizen/non citizen couples, and children born to non citizen residents within the United States, etc. All those citizens that are not natural born.
3. Naturalized citizens. Those that were born Subject to Jurisdiction of other nations, but now have, by choice, become citizens Subject to Jurisdiction of the United States.
Not just any citizen can be president. If that was true, the founders would have never put the natural born clause in the Constitution.
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.