Posted on 01/04/2010 1:40:16 PM PST by Spaulding
There may be a hidden storm arising in Hawaii about Obama’s records, as the sensitivities on the issue are way up in the past few weeks. The weasels are active.
Here is the part of the show transcript that I found to be Beck's most direct explanation of why the birther issue is secondary for him:
GLENN: Yeah. So why would you discredit yourself? Why would let's say it's true. Let's just say it's true that he's not. Do you really think that is the fastest way to get him out? Do you really think that's the fastest way to stop him from what I believe is the fundamental transformation of this country? Do you think that's going to stop healthcare?
STU: No.
GLENN: If you could, if, if you could hold his feet to the fire and say, “Produce the doctors and the nurses and the birth certificate” and somehow or another he couldn't do it, how long would it take you to get to that point? And in that point, in that time how much of the fundamental trans do you still have control of the court system in that time?
PAT: You should be able to get that to the Supreme Court by about 2015 1/2. I'd say by late October 2015.
The motive for countless fraudulent registrations in Hawaii should be obvious. It was the technique used by many foreign families to get native-born citizenship in Hawaii for their children. It was absurdly easy to accomplish. That this was commonly done in Hawaii is simply a fact.
Whether Grandma and Granpa Dunham did this for Stanley Ann, and Baby Bambi, I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. They had motive, as it certainly would have been better for an illegitimate kid born to an American girl to have American citizenship, as opposed to Colonial British citizenship from Kenya. We know that Grandma and Grandpa Dunham had ample opportunity to do it. But we just cannot know if they did or not.
It's a giant, fishy-smelling, fascinating, soap-opery mess, which is exactly why Obama's Multi-Million-Dollar Legal Dream Team keeps dragging people over to see it. It's why Obama keeps harping on his "Native" Born Citizenship," on his website. "Born in Hawaii." Fabulous smokescreen. Hell, it might even be true!
"Native" Born Citizen? OK. But Article II says NATURAL Born Citizen. Historically, that means a citizen born to TWO (2) American Citizens on American territory. No matter where he was born, he is still missing one citizen parent. And that's the problem with Obama.
The real question Americans should be asking is, "How come this was swept under the rug of The Electoral College, Dick Cheney presiding? These guys have the same copy of the Constitution that Freepers do, don't they?"
Although I am, more than is normal, prepared to dislike Glenn Beck's show, this comment is exactly the cold glass of reality water in the face we all need!
In re 2015, many Republicans are high on Bobby Jindal for national office. Although he is a native born citizen, NEITHER of his parents were US citizens when he was born, although they were later naturalized. Hello? SCOTUS?
What evidence do you have that there were "countless" fraudulent registrations in Hawaii? The only evidence I've ever seen birthers put forth is Sun Yat Sen's Certificate of Hawaiian Birth from 1918 (or was it earlier?) I don't remember the exact year.
I'm sorry, but the fact that there was one fraudulant registration in 1918 doesn't mean that there were "countless" such registrations in the 1960's.
It was the technique used by many foreign families to get native-born citizenship in Hawaii for their children. It was absurdly easy to accomplish. That this was commonly done in Hawaii is simply a fact.
So you claim. Do you have any evidence to support this supposed "fact" of yours?
Whether Grandma and Granpa Dunham did this for Stanley Ann, and Baby Bambi, I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. They had motive, as it certainly would have been better for an illegitimate kid born to an American girl to have American citizenship, as opposed to Colonial British citizenship from Kenya.
Yes, but you seem to be missing the point that they could have very easily and legally secured US citizenship for him without fraudulantly registering his birth in Hawaii. See Title III, section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
But Article II says NATURAL Born Citizen. Historically, that means a citizen born to TWO (2) American Citizens on American territory.
The second sentence above is simply not true.
No matter where he was born, he is still missing one citizen parent. And that's the problem with Obama.
So then why are you so obcessed with his long-form birth certificate?
These guys have the same copy of the Constitution that Freepers do, don't they?"
Yes. The difference is that unlike birther Freepers, they actually understand what it means.
I suggest that you speak with an Hawaiian attorney. The simple truth of the matter is that Hawaiian birth registration was an extremely lax procedure, and it was quite common for relatives to register foreign born children as native born, and obtain for them Hawaiian birth certificates, and subsequently the now notorious document, the Certification of Live Birth, which is nothing more than an an abstract.
Yes, but you seem to be missing the point that they could have very easily and legally secured US citizenship for him without fraudulantly registering his birth in Hawaii. See Title III, section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
At the time of Obama's birth, IF Mother Stanley had given birth overseas, she had not been a resident of the US for five consecutive years after the appropriate birthday to confer US Citizenship upon a foreign born child, with a foreign citizen father. I do not join the "Birthers" on their quest to discover the facts of the matter. I admire their patriotism, but think the inquiry a misdirection.
But Article II says NATURAL Born Citizen. Historically, that means a citizen born to TWO (2) American Citizens on American territory.
The second sentence above is simply not true.
I am afraid, my learned friend, that on that issue we must part company until after the courts have spoken.
PS: As I have stated, it is quite possible that BHO, Jr. is a "Native Born American Citizen." So the place of his birth matters little to me. No matter where it occurred, my take on the law is that it does not matter, as his father's citizenship clearly renders him ineligible under Article II.
That is why I am supporting those who are taking it to the appropriate courts to establish either his eligibility, or lack thereof. I have no illusions that this would, upon establishing BHO, Jr's ineligibility, remove him from office before his first and last term ends. If the court rulings are favorable to my point of view, this constitutional travesty will never take place again.
In other words, you don't have any evidence to back up your claim, as I suspected.
The simple truth of the matter is that Hawaiian birth registration was an extremely lax procedure, and it was quite common for relatives to register foreign born children as native born, and obtain for them Hawaiian birth certificates,
There you go again, making things up.
and subsequently the now notorious document, the Certification of Live Birth, which is nothing more than an an abstract.
Yes, it's an abstract. So?
The information on the abstract comes straight out of Hawaii's vital records, and it is certified by the state as being correct. That's why every court and government agency accepts it as proof of birth within the United States.
I am afraid, my learned friend, that on that issue we must part company until after the courts have spoken.
They already have. See US vs. Kim Wong Ark.
Well, here is a tiny piece of evidence: Maia Soetoro, BHO, Jr.'s half-sister, was born in Indonesia, and also has a Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth, as an abstract, cannot have all of the info of the original "long form" document from which it was extracted. That's why the "Birthers" want to see the "long form" Birth Certificate. I don't have to. I already know his father was a foreign citizen.
See US vs. Kim Wong Ark.
OK. SCOTUS ruled that "Native Born" Kim Wong Ark had the same rights of American citizenship as any "Natural Born Citizen." They did not say he was one. See Minor vs. Happersett. I am afraid, my learned friend, that on this issue we must again part company until after the courts have spoken.
Do you believe that a child born to two illegal aliens would be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US? Or that if Fidel Castro managed to impregnate an American co-ed, their offspring would also be a "Natural Born Citizen," providing of course, that she made it back to Malibu for the birth?
The Ark decision uses "native born" and "natural born" interchangeably. Furthermore, it is abunandly clear from the text of the majority opinion that they believed Mr. Ark to be a natural born citizen. No one who reads the decision honestly can come to any other conclusion.
They did not say he was one. See Minor vs. Happersett.
I read the decision, and I don't see how it helps your case.
Do you believe that a child born to two illegal aliens would be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US?
The question has not be definitively decided. According to the 14th Amendment, in order to be a natural born citizen, a child must be born in the US and subject to US jurisdicition. It is not clear whether a child of illegal aliens meets the jurisdictional requirement.
However, this is all irrelevant to Obama, since his father was here legally.
Or that if Fidel Castro managed to impregnate an American co-ed, their offspring would also be a "Natural Born Citizen," providing of course, that she made it back to Malibu for the birth?
Yes, the child would be a natural born citizen.
Sigh. Another birther fabrication. Do you guys ever get tired of making stuff up?
The Certification of Live Birth, as an abstract, cannot have all of the info of the original "long form" document from which it was extracted.
No, but it has all the information necessary to establish that a birth took place within in the United States.
Speaker phone would be fair and balanced. I like the idea. This would be so much fun, I’d take vacation time off from work to watch it (don’t have Tivo).
Mea culpa. After a quick cyber-consultation with Messrs Donofrio and Apuzzo, I must apologize for giving further currency to this canard. My antipathy to the marxist incompetent now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is so intense, that it occasionally causes me to suspend healthy disbelief.
Do you guys ever get tired of making stuff up?
Apparently not!
No, but it (The COLB) has all the information necessary to establish that a birth took place within in the United States.
A principal cause of the "Birther" angst is this very point. Prior to 1981, A COLB issued in Hawaii was not 100% definitive on this point, and although your research hasn't substantiated it, foreign born children were rather routinely issued Hawaiian Birth Certificates on the say-so of one relative. The "Birthers" have a point. They also claim a right, according to Hawaiian Law, to see the "Long Form Certificate" backing up the Obama COLB. That will be settled in Hawaiian Courts.
Since I think that BHO, Jr. was more than likely born in Hawaii, none of this truly interests me. I am interested in clarification of the Article II and 14th Amendment issues by the courts. That's because I believe that there is a qualitative constitutional difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen. You do not. IOW, I would gladly accept that putative Castro Bastard in post # 49 as a fellow citizen, just not a natural born citizen, as you would. IMHO, there is no office for which he/she would not be eventually eligible, except POTUS.
This being a legal matter, and I being a punting gentleman, I shall wager $10 to be given to Freerepublic in your name, should the courts support your point of view on Natural Born Citizenship. Of course, I shall wholeheartedly support the court's decision, either way.
I do not expect an opinion in time to affect Obama's present term.
Kudos to you for your honesty. It takes real integrity to admit when you're wrong.
A principal cause of the "Birther" angst is this very point. Prior to 1981, A COLB issued in Hawaii was not 100% definitive on this point, and although your research hasn't substantiated it, foreign born children were rather routinely issued Hawaiian Birth Certificates on the say-so of one relative.
So what is your source for this information? I've seen birthers claim it again and again, but not once have I seen anyone provide anything to support it. It seems as if some people just take it on faith.
You will understand my skepticism, given the tendency of birthers to fabricate canards by the dozen.
I can reasonably report on this one, as the point has been very well researched by Lawyer Donofrio, in Hawaii, with his results being reported on his archived blog
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com.,
which is a straight-forward, unhysterical look at the situation.
Atty. Donofrio could not, IMHO, be characterized as a "Birther." In fact, he has often opined that in all likelihood, BHO, Jr. was born in Hawaii. He and a colleague, Atty. Apuzzo, had also long ago determined that the "Birther" legal adventures were a wild goose chase, and ineptly handled at that. However, he was drawn into the hassle in Hawaii when the Hawaiian DOH refused to release the supporting documents for the COLB and their statement that BHO,Jr. was a "Natural Born Citizen,"and had been born in Hawaii."
The Hawaiian State version of FOIA, specifically requires them to do so. In addition, the Hawaiian DOH has been caught in a series of misdirections and untruths by citizens requesting the documentation. The citizens were also refused the information after the Hawaiian State Agency charged with administering the Information Act tried to help. There are now a great number of cases proceding against the DOH, seeking release of the documents, as required by state law.
Eventually, I believe the "Birthers" will get to see the long form birth certificate. I hope they will be happy with what they see.
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.