A NATION DECEIVED

News With Views ^ | 8/25/2009 | Lynn Stuter

[AJMCQ]

Recently, World Net Daily published an article about Also Known As (AKA) Obama's MySpace.com webpage. On that page, Obama's age is listed as 52.

Why is this relevant?

Well, first of all, when was Obama really born? Was he born in 1961 as the pictures of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) published by pro-AKA websites claim? Or was he born earlier or even later?

Of course, the answer to these questions is that we don't know. On July 27, 2009, Chiyome Fukino, Director, Department of Health, Hawaii, stated, in a press release,

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file for the Hawai'i State Department of health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement in October 2008 over eight months ago."

Unfortunately, Fukino misspoke. Historically, a natural born citizen is one born of two American parents within the United States (Vattel's Law of Nations, Section 212). As AKA has himself acknowledged, his mother was American, his father a British subject. Where he was actually born is not known. What his actual citizenship was and is, although he claims he was a dual citizen, is also not known. The only people with dual citizenship, however, eligible to the office of president, under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States Constitution, were the Founding Fathers of which AKA is not one.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I like the AKA title for the “ONE”.

[Diogenesis]

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
"The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record.
BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.”
It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in.
In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)
.... there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.”
The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.
(See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)
In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”
In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.”

[kittykat77]

Please check the link. I keep arriving on the main page, instead of the article page. Thanks!

[CPOSharky]

I like the AKA title for the “ONE”.

Likewise. How 'bout adding 'Born Where?' to that. AKABW. (Sounds almost like akbar.);-)

[sickoflibs]

It was never a national question.

[Uncle Chip]

Our forefathers put that clause in the Constitution for just a time as this.

[DJ MacWoW]

The title doesn’t refer to a question. It means the nation believed he is Constitutionally qualified. If he’s not, he deceived that Nation.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I like it,I like it.

[RoadKingSE]

[AJMCQ]

Yes “Road King” (King?...aren’t you important). Wanting to see the Constitution upheld is beating a dead horse (How clever!); and we are all extreme right-wing, fringe lunatic, wingnuts... now crawl back under your Daily KOS rock.

[DJ MacWoW]

It always amazes me the number of people that open a thread and then complain about the subject matter. Opening the thread was voluntary. Don’t like the content? Move on. It’s the adult thing to do.

[1234]

"Please check the link. I keep arriving on the main page, instead of the article page...."

aren't article posters supposed to check link to source article?!

[Anima Mundi]

The last paragraph indicates that “he” claims dual citizenship. I assume the “he” is Obama. And it also says that this is illegal. So, if Obama himself claims dual citizenship and this is prohibited as far as becoming President, why is there need to even worry about the birth certificate itself? It seems like, if true, the case is all made right there, by his own admission.

[RoadKingSE]

It always amazes me the number of people that feel compelled to deliver an unsolicited response to a post that they disagree with. Don’t like the post. Move on. It’s the adult thing to do DJ MacWowwy.

[DJ MacWoW]

My observation struck a nerve.

unsolicited response to a post that they disagree with.

This is a discussion forum noob. You aren't posting in a vacuum. And your statement makes you a hypocrite.

[RGSpincich]

At least the doctor appears to have her head screwed on right regarding healthcare.

http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/guesteditorials/20090817_Complex_health_care_issue_deserves_closer_scrutiny.html

[sickoflibs]

RE :”It means the nation believed he is Constitutionally qualified. If he’s not, he deceived that Nation.”

He never had to address the nation on this issue. It never came up during the election and once he was sworn in (almost) no one will touch it. Anyone legitimately criticizing his policies is accused of being a racist, imagine what the response would be from challenging his birth. The big problem with the issue is it revolves around his birth. Even if you could prove he was not born in the USA you would have to prove he knew he was not a citizen to make it a moral issue at all. That would be like having a recording of his admitting it but saying he doesnt care. Legally, it's dead.

[DJ MacWoW]

You misunderstand the title then launch into why we should ignore the Constitution. If you disagree, if you believe it’s not worth defending, why post? Do you honestly believe that you will change anyone’s opinion? And that the subject will be dropped at your behest?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”. If you disagree, if you believe it’s not worth defending, why post? Do you honestly believe that you will change anyone’s opinion? And that the subject will be dropped at your behest?”

I have made many predictions here that were unpopular (here) at the time but turned out true. You think the reply section is just for those that agree with you? I dont see others following that rule in my posts, or others either.

Reminds me of Mark Levin’s treatment of callers. “Agree with me or shut up”

I didnt even call you a birther LOL