Posted on 07/20/2009 7:40:35 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta
“Thus anyone who is a citizen, at birth or later, only because of those sections, or any other Congressional laws, must logically be a naturalized citizen.”
That’s a contradiction. Naturalization only happens *AFTER* birth. Birthright (’natural-born’) citizen and naturalized citizen are mutually exclusive.
If, as you say, the COLB is the real deal then someone in supplies needs to answer for ordering years and years and years of November 2001 COLB forms since they’ve lasted through at least June 2007 when that one was stamped.
China’s Sun Yat Sen’s states he was born in Hawaii, too. Imagine that!
“It was not publicly known that Arthur’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth”
Actually it was known that Chester Arthur had a foreign father. Like Obama, Chester Arthur had an American mother and the official story was that he was born in the US (Vermont), and thus a natural-born citizen.
Attempts to suggest that Arthur wasnt born in Vermont but was born in Canada didnt make a difference - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur
“During the 1880 U.S. presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears”
History repeats itself.
“And what happens when such a minor child reaches the age of eighteen, does nothing to affirm US citizenship”
Did you have to affirm US citizenship at 18?
If you are born a citizen, there is nothing you need do subsequently to retain said citizenship.
Wow. A correct statement! Like an oasis in a desert!
---------------------------------------
"To: mlo
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.
And on the 28 or 29th of June Okubo realized that she could be wrong admitted to the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times in an article:
"I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
-----------------------
And you pull out this nonsense:
Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."
I remember debunking this back in November. "Yes" to what?
Two quotes that are separated.
"That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."
"Saying" about what? That the sky is green and the grass is blue?
If the Chicago Times had anything worth saying about Obama's origin, they would not have put it in their blog section - "The Swamp"
It was known that the father was born in Ireland, but apparently it was not widely known at the time that the father was not a naturalized citizen of the US until long after Chester Arthur's birth.
Actually, they are citing current law correctly. It suffices to have a US citizen mother to become a citizen at birth, and you can be born anywhere to get that. But that's today not 1961. The best you can do in retort is to point out that the law at the time of BHO's birth was a bit confusing such that a woman as young as Obama's mother might not meet residency requirements (something like 3 years in the US after age 16) if he was born overseas. If he was born in Honolulu, SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark ruling is the precedent and he's a citizen for sure.
----------------------------------------
"To: sarah p
---------------
"Perhaps you would comment on this exchange I had with the Dept of Health in Hawaii about your claims..
-—— Original Message -——
From: Redacted
To: vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Alleged statement by Janice Okubo
The Chicago tribune published the following on Nov 3rd:
“Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”
Can you please confirm the accuracy of this statement?
Is Dr Fukino categorically stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?
-——Original Message-——
From: vr-info [mailto:vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 8:21 PM
To: Redacted
Subject: Re: Alleged statement by Janice Okubo
Thank you for your inquiry. Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances. State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS-338-18(b)
Aloha,
vr-info
Department of Health
State of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii"
100 posted on Monday, December 08, 2008 7:29:08 AM by Wil H "
“I don’t believe US laws should or are primarily determined by the actions of foreign governments. Especially as regards to minors. The King of Thailand was born in a hospital in Cambridge, MA. (His partents were studying at Harvard at the time.) He is still a US Citizen.”
Interesting factoid. Your points are correct.
Nowhere in my above post # 349 does Hawaii support the dubious Okubo “Yes” answer that Okubo gave to who knows what.
It was known that his father was foreign born, lots of citizens were, but not that he was a foreign national.
“I have been thinking the same for 2 years now. Sorry to say but Barry is untouchable.”
“Let’s see what happens. Is Joe Biden any better? Ick...”
No, he’s not, just funnier. I was wondering why Obama picked “sub-average Joe” the foot-in-mouth doofus to be his Vice President.
Now we know. VP Biden is IMPEACHMENT INSURANCE.
He was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts on Jan 20th, subsequent to Congress certifying the electoral college results. So whether engaged in some fraud or not to get there, he's the duly elected POTUS, and can only be removed via impeachment or by kicking his sorry a** out of the White House after the next election.
We are the greatest nation on earth. The people are wising up to Obama. We shall prevail, and our Republic will endure.
Well, lets just say he must be legally assumed to be the President. However, he either is or is not eligible to the Office of President. If he is not, he's not the President. Somewhat like an accused murderer. He either is or is not a murderer, but for most puroposes the law assumes he is not. Until the trial that is.
In this case it might be until the discovery phase of a trial, or the trial itself. It could even be the fact finding phase of Congressional hearings (I would not hold my breath waiting in the case of this Congress).
However once it was completely proven that he was not eligible, impeachment would not be an option, as only "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States"may be impeached", and then only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.". Fraud to obtain the office of President would surely be a "high crime", but if he's not President, he doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the House.
Obama’s COLB ...
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
and other valid COLBs from 2007 ...
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/small-COLBS/Dan-small.jpg
... have the same November 2001 revision date for the forms.
You have shown no reference to any official document that says Obama is a citizen of any country other than the US.
That’s why it’s “not shown”. Referencing some other law or making a supposition based on a statement on a defunct website doesnt cut it.
Are you saying you take Obama’s word over cold hard facts?
'Fraid not. Congress only has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". They cannot define who is a "natural born" citizen. They can only define who can be naturalized, and how. Thus anyone not a natural born citizen, or a so called 14th amendment or "native born" citizen, who is a citizen solely by virtue of Congress' "Uniform Rule" is a naturalized citizen.
Where you go wrong is assuming that "birthright" and "natural born" are the same thing, they aren't. There are (at least) three circumstances where one is born a citizen. One can be natural born, one can be native born (which Obama would be if born in the US) , or one can be naturalized at birth under statute law, (which he would have been if born outside the US and his mother had been a bit older).
Either that, or the Constitution does not mean what it says, which appears to be the Obamites' position.
The only process to remove a President once he has been sworn in, prior to the next election, is impeachment and removal.
Courts could rule on eligibility in the context of a ballot challenge prior to the election, ie, an attempt to kick an ineligible candidate off the ballot. But after he is sworn in, no court process could kick him out of office except impeachment. As noted, even a felon could still serve as President, until impeached/removed.
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.
