Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaiian officials admit withholding Obama's original BC
Isreal Insider ^ | November 1, 2008

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; certifigate; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last
To: classified
Obama is not a natural born citizen, because his father was not a US citizen.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, his father's citizenship is irrelevant. Obama would be a natural born 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.

There are only two classes of American citizens: naturalized citizens (who are not eligible for the Presidency) and citizens from birth (who are). There is no category in American law of someone who is a citizen at birth, but does not qualify as natural-born for purposes of serving as President.

However, if we 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

No, that is not what the law is saying. That law only dealt with the status of kids born abroad. Anyway, note that the law does not require both parents to be American citizens for the kid to be considered natural born. One parent would be enough.

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 citizens 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.

The 1795 law says no such thing. The 1795 law is silent on the issue of who is and isn't a natural born citizen, but that does not support your conclusion.

Also in the 1795 law you can see that to become a naturalized citizen, you had to “support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject.

This only deals with naturalized citizens- it has nothing to do with citizens from birth.

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

That is not correct. You can retain dual citizenship and still meet the requirements of this provision. I am a naturalized citzen of the US, but am also a citizen of two other countries. Dual citizenship is not a bar to the Presidency.

Children that were born to fathers that never resided in the United States were barred from citizenship at birth. “right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

That only applies to someone who is born aborad to an American citizen mother and a non-citizen father who has never resided in the US. It is wholly irrelevant to someone born in the US.

121 posted on 11/24/2008 11:08:39 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: classified
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.”

You are drawing an incorrect conclusion here. The State Department is only making it clear that being born on a US base or embassy abroad is not, in of itself, a basis for citizenship. If it was, then the kids of Iraqi women who are born in US bases in the Green Zone (a somewhat common occurence these days) could run for President. However, a kid born abroad to an American citizen or citizens obtains US citizenship, from birth, based on the parents' citizenship.

122 posted on 11/24/2008 11:13:40 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
What if, while visiting in the US, a foreign woman gives birth to a child - an anchor baby, if you will. Is THAT infant now a legal, US Citizen?

Yes, and they are qualified to serve as President.

123 posted on 11/24/2008 11:18:28 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: classified
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.

Nonsense. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" deals with the issue of the children of diplomats. They are, AFAIK, the only people born in the US but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof as they are not subject, by treaty, to American law.

Are you arguing that Obama is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? So, he can commit murder and not be prosecuted for it?

Not just any citizen can be president. If that was true, the founders would have never put the natural born clause in the Constitution.

That's correct- naturalized citizens cannot be President. But any American who was a citizen at birth can.

124 posted on 11/24/2008 11:24:03 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KO2bUOb4k


125 posted on 11/24/2008 12:57:30 PM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: library user
Martin
126 posted on 11/24/2008 12:59:17 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"What if, while visiting in the US, a foreign woman gives birth to a child - an anchor baby, if you will. Is THAT infant now a legal, US Citizen?"

Unfortunately, with some few exceptions, yes. It happens all the time. Anchor baby on Wikipedia The article was clearly written by a lib and is biased, but that is one of the flaws of Wikipedia.

127 posted on 11/24/2008 1:04:47 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg
Yes, Orrin Hatch was willing to be the front-person for that. They were talking about Schwarzenegger and Granholm together benefitting from such a change.

-PJ

128 posted on 11/24/2008 1:07:20 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: classified
"The anchor baby argument that someone posted earlier is total bunk."

That someone was me. It isn't bunk. Please provide a citation that refutes my claim. Here is one that supports my position. Clearly written by a lib and biased, but even so it describes the issue. And plays the race card.

"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.'"

Virtually all persons within the borders of the US are subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof excepting a few cases such as children born to diplomats, children born to indian tribes and subject to tribal law, kids born on ships or planes while in transit through US waters or airspace, and so forth:

"While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas." From Findlaw

The 14th Amendment itself only specifies two classes of citizen: "born or naturalized" [Section 1]

The purpose of the 14th Amendment (1868) was to insure the rights of former slaves and explicitly grant them the status of either a natural born or naturalized citizen (there weren't all that many "imported" slaves left at the time of the Civil War, but there were some. Most were "domestically produced" by then. The actual trade of African slaves had been stopped.)

"You must be born of 2 US citizen parents within the borders of the USA to be a natural born citizen."

Patently untrue. Nowhere is this stated. This language does not exist anywhere in the Constitution or US law. If this were the case, why doesn't the Constitution just say so, or at least the 14th Amendment? Where did you get this idea? See the varous references provided on this thread and in this post specifically. Do you claim that none of the children of US Military born overseas to persons serving their country overseas at the behest of their government can ever be President? Now, I think the Romans had some such requirements for their Emperors, although I'm not certain, but I am certain that we do not.

"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."

Was Obama born to diplomats, or to indians on a reservation, or to members of an occupying force, etc.? If not, and his birth was mundane then the "Subject" clause applies.

"Obama was born a SUBJECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, and therefore was not a citizen of the United States. "

Dual Citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US as well as what ever other country they hold citizenship from. It simply does not matter if Obama held British or Kenyan citizenship in addition to his (unproven) US citizenship.

"US Dual Citizenship: The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship." [from above link]

And none of the rest of your post, British law or Kenyan law has any bearing what so ever. Repeating it ad nauseam won't make it true. SHOUTING it won't make it true. Please provide some actual references to support your position instead of just regurgitating your previously refuted assertions.

129 posted on 11/24/2008 2:35:46 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
"children of diplomats. They are, AFAIK, the only people born in the US but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof as they are not subject, by treaty, to American law."

Also children of indians (subject to tribal law, by treaty), children of hostile occupying forces, and children born on boats, planes, etc. transiting through US waters, airspace, etc. See the link a few comments up.

130 posted on 11/24/2008 2:44:55 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: calenel

We have friends here in DC- he is a French diplomat and she is an American citizen (they met in college, before he took the embassy job). They have a couple of kids- I assume that they qualify as natural-born citizens, since I don’t think they get diplomatic immunity. Interesting question- I’m going to ask them if they know the kids’ status next time we see them.


131 posted on 11/24/2008 2:49:40 PM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"The Walter-McCarran Act 'reformed' the law I was referring to."

And what law was that? Please provide a link, or at least more information. You still haven't said what law you are talking about. It would be easier if we didn't have to work backwards.

132 posted on 11/24/2008 2:51:07 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
"I assume that they qualify as natural-born citizens, since I don’t think they get diplomatic immunity"

That should be the case. They may be (probably are) dual citizens of France and the US, depending on whether French law allows it. They might be forced to renounce their US citizenship or lose their French citizenship when they reach their majority.

133 posted on 11/24/2008 2:55:33 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"Apparently they don't happen to be working for the Departments with access."

No doubt the few patriots with access, if there are any, believe in the Rule of Law. And most likely the purpose of 0's trip to HI, aside from insuring his grandmother didn't spill the beans, was to get the BC locked down and sealed so that nobody what so ever could see it.

134 posted on 11/24/2008 3:06:46 PM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

No you do not, as many children were born just like McCain was to US servicemen serving overseas. Yet, they were born to parents who were by and large both natural born US citizens and delivered by US military military MD’s in US military hospitals on US military bases.


135 posted on 11/24/2008 4:19:37 PM PST by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: classified
"Interestingly, Obama claims that he is a citizen of the U.S. according to the 14th Amendment."

I haven't heard the quote, but I've been giving it some thought since I read it in your comment. What I think Mr. Constitutional Scholar Obama was referring to with that is that the 14th Amendment indisputably gave African-Americans citizenship. It's just his racist views sneaking through.

136 posted on 11/25/2008 12:46:54 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
"We have friends here in DC- he is a French diplomat and she is an American citizen (they met in college, before he took the embassy job). They have a couple of kids- I assume that they qualify as natural-born citizens, since I don’t think they get diplomatic immunity. Interesting question- I’m going to ask them if they know the kids’ status next time we see them."

Did you ever get a chance to ask your friends about their kids' citizenship status?

137 posted on 12/23/2008 3:27:10 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: calenel
Off topic but did you see that the NYT's got dupped inton running a letter from the Mayor of Paris, claiming Caroline Kennedy was not qualifies to run for the senate seat in NY.

Surprise, they had to run an apology today. Seems after they got the letter they failed to check to see if he actually wrote the letter before publishing it.

He didn' t

138 posted on 12/23/2008 3:30:48 AM PST by mware (F-R-E-E, that spells free. Free Republic.com baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: calenel
What I think Mr. Constitutional Scholar Obama was referring to with that is that the 14th Amendment indisputably gave African-Americans citizenship. It's just his racist views sneaking through.

That'a called taking an x-acto knife to a jigsaw puzzle piece to make it fit.

139 posted on 12/23/2008 3:35:03 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: mware
Yes. Any time someone makes the old grey vampire look foolish is “good times.” Violated their own policy on such letters, too. I wonder who they really want to have that seat. They would have suppressed that letter if they liked Princess Caroline.
140 posted on 12/23/2008 4:40:23 AM PST by calenel (The Democratic Party is a Criminal Enterprise. It is the Socialist Mafia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson