Letter: Birth questions legitimate [Certifigate]

The Tulsa World ^ | August 14, 2009 | Wayman Patterson

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Tulsa World again showed its bias against Sen. Jim Inhofe in the headline for its article on the questionable evidence of Barak Obama's natural-born status ("Inhofe weighs in on Obama birth site," July 28).

Inhofe specifically said he didn't weigh in because he hadn't studied the facts. Jim Inhofe said, "No comment," but he "weighed in"?

Your article derisively calls all who wonder if Obama is a natural-born citizen, "birthers," while Obama has blocked access to his long form birth certificate.

Two Hawaii hospitals have claimed to be the hospital where Obama was born. No hospital has produced the long form certificate that lists the attending doctor.

His Kenyan grandmother said she was present when he was born in Kenya. He was accepted into an Indonesian school, which would require him to be an Indonesian citizen. He has blocked attempts to see the passport he used in traveling to Kenya and blocks all his school records. Why, if he has nothing to hide?

Fifty eight percent of an AOL online poll said he should show his long form birth certificate, and 49.3 percent of the scientific Wenzel poll agreed. If about half the U.S. want these questions answered, you shouldn't call it a side issue.

The appearance from your editorial ("The 'birthers,'" July 29) and cartoon is that your agenda is to destroy the messenger if you don't like the message.

More than half of your readers voted for Inhofe. It is amazing you have so little concern for their thoughts and abandoned any semblance of fairness and truthfulness toward him.

Wayman Patterson, Tulsa

Editor's note: Inhofe did not say "no comment" in response to questions about Obama's birth. He said "I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that.''

In an interview with the Tulsa World he stressed repeatedly that Obama's citizenship is not an issue he has taken on and added in a subsequent statement that he is not a legal expert on the subject and has given Obama "the benefit of the doubt." But he also said in that statement, "If there are legal experts who have concerns, I would encourage them to continue looking into it."

[mlo]

"It's obviously not already the case, if Senators are sponsoring bills proposing to amend the Constitution over it."

That's not obvious at all. Don't underestimate the ability of a politician to make doing nothing seem important.

[mlo]

"Are you claiming that individuals born to two U.S. citizen parents are not natural born citizens?"

Not at all. They are. As are children born to aliens, if they are born in the US.

[RegulatorCountry]

It’s intriguing to me, how well this bill co-sponsored by Inhofe addresses the known circumstances of Barack Obama. One citizen parent, adopted ...

[RegulatorCountry]

Why did you claim the statement was completely false, then?

I’d say a plurality, if not an outright majority of FReepers would say that statement is completely true.

You, apparently, are now saying that the statement is partially true, instead of completely false, as you said a few replies upthread.

Are you sure you think it’s partially true, now?

How did we arrive at the point, that born of the soil, alone, is interpreted as natural born, yet born of two parents is interpreted as natural born when not born of the soil? How can one specific, legal term of art in the Constitution have so many meanings?

It can’t, and it doesn’t.

[mlo]

"I am fully correct when speaking in context of the 18th Century and what the people that wrote the U.S. Constitution meant."

No you aren't correct. You've picked up one of the silly birther legal theories and are pushing it. It has no merit.

"To not acknowledge this original intent is to be as obtuse as those persons that cry the 2nd Ammendment is not an individual right."

Nothing like it. You want me to just accept your contention that your belief is original intent, but it isn't. It was the common law of England and then of the US that a person born in the country was a natural born citizen.

Once again, here is the US Supreme Court specifically and directly disputing your contention:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Here's another court:

"Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."

"The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the 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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the ' the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

[mlo]

"Why did you claim the statement was completely false, then?"

Becuase the meaning of the statement is that the citizenship of the parents is required. That's the point that was being made by posting it. And that is false.

[mlo]

"How did we arrive at the point, that born of the soil, alone, is interpreted as natural born, yet born of two parents is interpreted as natural born when not born of the soil? How can one specific, legal term of art in the Constitution have so many meanings?"

A term can have more meanings because it is more general than you are trying to read it.

A "natural born citizen" is one that has citizenship by birth. That is its meaning.

That includes anyone born in the US. It also includes persons not born in the US, but born to US citizens. The term is more general than either of these subgroups.

[RegulatorCountry]

You state that with such confidence. Your confidence flies in the face of so many attempts to alter or remove the natural born citizen clause for eligibility to the office of President. The bill sponsored by Inhofe above, as well as at least five others since 2000 would have been totally unnecessary.

The only way your point of view could be correct, is if the 14th Amendment concerned Presidential eligibility. It clearly did not. Dicta from Minor v. Happersett thoroughly undermines such a contention, coming well after ratification of the 14th Amendment, so what is it, that you're basing this opinion upon? Statutory law, Acts of Congress? Unconstitutional, unless dealing with naturalization, as per enumerated powers of the Legislature under the Constitution.

[RegulatorCountry]

Becuase the meaning of the statement is that the citizenship of the parents is required. That's the point that was being made by posting it. And that is false

According to what statute or Amendment? Such definition was clearly understood to be evident in the writing, from John Jay, through Marshall, to Waite and beyond into the twentieth century.

Supreme Court decisions were and are still within such understanding, as is that ludicrous Sense of the Senate SR 511.

[RegulatorCountry]

Mr. Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen, mlo. And, wonder of wonders, you cite New York courts, and omit the following:

In Chancery – Lynch v. Clarke and Lynch.

Before the Hon. LEWIS H. SANDFORD, Assistant Vice Chancellor of the First Circuit .
Bernard Lynch John Clarke AND Julia Lynch

Heard , July 6, 7, 8, 10 , and 12, 1843 ; and upon briefs as to the question of alienage, May 6, July 19, and September 17, 1844. Decided, November 5, 1844.

Under the Constitution of the United States, the power to regulate naturalization is vested in Congress, and since Congress has legislated upon this subject, the states have no power to act in regard to it.

Neither the common law nor the statute law of the State of New York, can determine whether Julia Lynch was or was not an alien.

So, it's highly disingenuous of you, mlo, to cite mere speculation from a state court judge, the honorable Lewis H. Sandford, who prefaced his remarks by saying that he had no authority to do so, under common law, statute law of the state of New York, or under the Constitution, due to enumerated powers.

[patriot08]

.

Dr. Orly storms Israel:
Go Lady Liberty!!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880

______________________________

Canada Free Press
JB Williams

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.

(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.

(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.

(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.

(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.

(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.

(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..

Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

___________________________________

A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:

Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials!

Dr. Orly’s official website:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
Or Dr. Orly’s blog:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

.

[john mirse]

My strong suspicion here is that Barry’s birth certificate was obtained based on the testimony of his relatives rather than official hospital records. That’s why the Hawaii officials declarations have been so legalistic and why he can’t let anyone see the original info. In other words, he might well have born in Hawaii, but full disclosure doesn’t strengthen his case.

********

Dr. Fukino, Hawaii official, publicly announced a few weeks ago that she had seen Obama's long form birth certificate.

After looking at Obama's long form birth certificate, she then declared that Obama was a citizen of the United States.

My question is this: What did Dr. Fukino see on Obama's 1961 long form birth that proved to her and other Hawaii officials beyond any doubt that Obama was an American citizen?

Was it the word "Honolulu"? I don't think that would be enough evidence to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.

To be sure that Obama was born in Hawaii, I think that Dr. Fukino would have had to look at the signature of the person who CERTIFIED that Obama was born on a certain date.

Below is copy of the item on a 1961 Hawaii long form birth certificate where a person----m.d., d.o., midwife, or other---signed the space for the WITNESS to a birth.

"I hereby certify that the child was born alive on the date and hour stated above."

"19a. Signature of Attendant"

M.D. |_|

D.O. |_|

MIDWIFE |_|

OTHER |_|

So, again, Dr. Fukino---and other high-ranking Hawaii officials---in order to positively prove in their minds that Obama was born in Hawaii, would have had to look at and verified that someone signed and checked "19a. Signature of Attendant."

I believe that the issue is this: Who signed the space of "Signature of Attendant"?

1. Was it a doctor or midwife?

2. Or, more damaging to Obama, was it "Other"?

3. If it was "Other", who could it have been?

4. If it was "Other", is it possible that Obama's GRANDMOTHER LIED and signed her name?

5. If it was "Other", then it means that Obama was not born at Kapiolani hospital as Obama claims.

6. My point is this: Dr. Fukino of Hawaii must tell us how she knows that Obama is a citizen of the United States.

7. That is, Dr. Fukino must tell us if the "Signature of Attendant" is that of a doctor or that of "Other".

8. In addition, if there is no doctor or midwife signature, then there will not be a hospital name, either.

9. And if there is no doctor name or hospital name, then where was Obama born?

10. Dear Dr. Fukino: It is not enough to tell us that Obama is a citizen of the United States, because you really have no legal power to make such a decision of who is or who is not a citizen, especially since you are not a lawyer or an elected public official.

11. Dear Dr. Fukino: Who signed the space for "Signature of Attendant" and certified that Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961?

12. Dr. Fukino: If you are going to make a public announcement that Obama is an American citizen, then you have a moral obligation to also explain to the public what you saw on Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate that led you to your conclusion that Obama was an American citizen.

13. However, I'm afraid you cannot simply cite as evidence that you saw the word "Hawaii" typed or written on the long form birth certificate.

14. I'm sorry, Dr. Fukino, but the controversy has grown so intense and so ugly over the past year that you now have to tell us who signed the "Signature of Attendant", that is, you have to tell us who certified that he/she was a WITNESS to Obama's birth in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, if you expect to have any credibility left whatsoever with the public.

15. If the signature is NOT that of a doctor or a midwife, then Hawaii officials and Obama have a lot of explaining to do.

[Sola Veritas]

“No you aren’t correct. You’ve picked up one of the silly birther legal theories and are pushing it. It has no merit.”

That is specious logic (strawman fallacy). You make the unprovable and opionated claim of “silly birther legal theories” and then dismiss it as having “no merit.” Then you quote dubious (Wong Kim) cases while ignoring many other extant statements made early in the formation of the constitution and shortly afterward, plus those made in reference to the 14th Ammendment. Others preceeding me have been gracious enough to bring you to task on this. Actually, the more I hear and read the reasoned, and backed with PROPER historical quotes, arguements of those that say President Obama is not “natural born”, the more convinced I become of their correctness. Your stuff......???

Therefore, I can only conclude that you are one of three things:

1. A Troll
2. A willfully ignorant person
3. A traitor in regards to the U.S. Constitution

In the first case.....I think you would have been banned already. So, that probably isn’t so. In the second case, if so, you should just shut up, stay off FR, and leave good people alone. If the third is the case....you should be deported to Kenya.

[Redwood Bob]

Nobody has ever accused the Constitutional Convention of being a gang of idiots. It seems to me that if they had intended to restrict eligibility to those “native-born, of two U.S. citizen parents”, they would have said so. It’s not like they wrote “natural-born” to save ink and paper.

The authors clearly intended the Electoral College to play an active role in choosing the president. In the early elections, many of the electors were actually appointed by state legislatures. I think they intended the E.C. to resolve any ambiguities as to a candidate’s “natural-born” status amongst themselves.

Instead, the E.C. has become a mere formality, a “Dunsell” in the electoral system. So “natural-born” has been defined by actual practice, meaning “citizen-at-birth”, whether by ius solis, as per English common law, incorporated into U.S. common law, and formalized by the 14th amendment, or by such elements of ius sanguinis that Congress has seen fit to enact into law.

[mlo]

"Nobody has ever accused the Constitutional Convention of being a gang of idiots. It seems to me that if they had intended to restrict eligibility to those “native-born, of two U.S. citizen parents”, they would have said so. It’s not like they wrote “natural-born” to save ink and paper."

Why are you telling me? I agree.

[RegulatorCountry]

o “natural-born” has been defined by actual practice, meaning “citizen-at-birth”, whether by ius solis, as per English common law, incorporated into U.S. common law, and formalized by the 14th amendment, or by such elements of ius sanguinis that Congress has seen fit to enact into law.

Unconscionable. Marbury v. Madison.

Unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8

[mlo]

"That is specious logic (strawman fallacy). You make the unprovable and opionated claim of “silly birther legal theories” and then dismiss it as having “no merit.”"

I'm expressing my opinion. And it's not strawman, you need to look that up.

"Then you quote dubious (Wong Kim) cases while ignoring many other extant statements made early in the formation of the constitution and shortly afterward, plus those made in reference to the 14th Ammendment."

So an actual opinion from the US Supreme Court that directly addresses the question is "dubious", but quotes from books, from speeches, and other non-primary sources that make glancing references are definitive? This is why you have it wrong.

"Others preceeding me have been gracious enough to bring you to task on this."

Others preceding you have made the same mistakes, yes. And I've explained the same things to them.

"Actually, the more I hear and read the reasoned, and backed with PROPER historical quotes, arguements of those that say President Obama is not “natural born”, the more convinced I become of their correctness. Your stuff......???"

Like I said, this is why you have it wrong. You've got which are "proper" references all backwards.

"Therefore, I can only conclude that you are one of three things:..."

How about someone speaking the truth?

For some reason you believe your opinion on this subject is unquestionable. It isn't. You are wrong.

"In the first case.....I think you would have been banned already."

You're right. Jim's already addressed that one:

JimRob
Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:12:36 PM · 437 of 526
Jim Robinson to MHGinTN

FReeper mlo:

Signup 1998-09-18
Messages 9 articles, 3779 replies

Looks like mlo was in on the ground floor of building FR’s credulity. Suggest FReepers lighten up a bit on attacking other FReepers who don’t agree with them.

You should leave the man alone instead of pinging him to everyone that expresses an opinion you don't like.

"In the second case, if so, you should just shut up, stay off FR, and leave good people alone."

There is no reason on earth I should do such a thing, nor would I tell you to do it. It's too bad you have such intolerance for the truth.

[Sola Veritas]

“There is no reason on earth I should do such a thing, nor would I tell you to do it. It’s too bad you have such intolerance for the truth.”

You not expressing the truth, you are expressing an opinion. Granted so am I. However, this issue seems crystal clear to me. President Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen, regardless of the small things you post. I have read mountains of much better organized and reasoned material. There are whole treatises out there on how the Wong Kim decision does NOT, when fully read, say what you claim.

I’m very “intolerant” on this issue because I am convinced that someone, that appears to be informed as you, that holds to your position is stupid (a contradiction) or a damnable traitor. True brave patriots like Major Cook have placed it on the line, just like the signers of the Declaration of Independence did. It makes me both sick and livid when persons, on a supposed conservative forum, bellittle this man’s, and associates, efforts. If they fail, YOU and your ilk helped them fail. That makes you treasonous in my eyes because you are disloyal to the U.S. Constitution and should know better.

President Obama is NOT constitutionally qualified to be POTUS because his father was not a U.S. citizen. It is that simple. Whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, it makes no difference. He should NOT be POTUS if the constitution was properly interpreted and followed. He is not qualified by his father’s lack of citizenship.

I do not advocate any manner of violent removal. I advocate citizens hamering congress to remove him by the rule of law.

And I will continue to ping Mr. Robinson until you stop harassing constitutional purists and patriots.

[Josephat]

“As are children born to aliens, if they are born in the US”.
Think about that statement. You are saying that Putin or Chavez could send their very pregnant wife, girlfriend, or whore to our shores to deliver and the child would be elegible to our highest office. That is insane and clearly not what the founders intended.

[Josephat]

“As are children born to aliens, if they are born in the US”.
Think about that statement. You are saying that Putin or Chavez could send their very pregnant wife, girlfriend, or whore to our shores to deliver and the child would be elegible to our highest office. That is insane and clearly not what the founders intended.