Obama Born In The U.S. ? New Facts And Questions Say; 'Probably Not!'

Source? Sherlock Holmes | MB26

[MindBender26]

Obama Born In The U.S. ? New Facts Say; “Probably Not!”

Let me be the first to admit that I have been a constant debunker of the “Obama Born Overseas” stories. How could it be possible? How could the DNC, Hillary, Edwards, the RNC, McCain, Romney, AP, BBC, ABC, FNC, etc, (and every 100th listing in the DC phone book) not have checked this out to its last level of possibility?

Well, it appears that they didn’t! Everyone assumed “the other guy did it.”

Forget for the moment all the clues left by the high-priced Obama and DNC legal teams. They are huge.

Obama and the DNC always argue “standing.” They could eliminate every legal challenge in 5 minutes by simply producing a certified copy of the original long-form birth certificate. Throw in the testimony of the Hawaii Registrar of Documents, a few retired FBI chief document examiners, and the doctor who delivered him for good measure.

If they did that in two or three courts of record, in light of the obvious media coverage it would receive, every other court nationwide would accept the precedence and the cases would all be over.

But they don’t. They keep telling the courts, “please don’t hear this case.” No proof of any kind. Just the legalese argument that the plaintiffs have no standing before that court.

That’s so overreaching, it’s like buying a refinery to get a 3000 mile oil change! And one day, some court is going to say…. “Show me the money, er,. ah, I mean, Show me the documents!”

But there is a second, and perhaps new point!

Where is that doctor who delivered him, or the midwife?

Stop and think. The delivery of a half Negro – half Caucasian baby was rare anyhere in 1961. Oriental babies were common in Hawaii of course, but a half Negro-half Caucasian baby with the funny name of Barrack Obama, in Hawaii? In 1961?

Even of you were a Republican, if you delivered a future President of the United States, wouldn’t you call some newspaper somewhere with your story. Or if you were the assistant obstetrician, or the anesthesiologist, or the scrub nurse?

What about the circulating nurse, or the pediatrician, one of a dozen nurses on the 24 hour-a-day shifts in the nursery, one of many nurses on the ward where Mrs. Obama would have stayed for three days, a records registrar, a technician of any kind, hell, even the janitor!

What about the clerks, ambulance drivers….. somebody ?!?!?!

Anybody ?!?!?!

Wouldn’t someone have been yelling their “credit” for this from the rooftops???? The date when he was born is (supposedly) known. Certainly all these (supposed) people would know where they were working then!

Where is somebody, anybody, who was there or even remembers the birth?

Sherlock Holmes once solved a case by noticing the dog that DID NOT bark.

Is this the same situation?

[mlo]

"Ditto to you."

A ruling from the Supreme Court is not a random historical text. Do you really believe you are being honest when you write this stuff, or are you just interested in "winning"?

[HawaiianGecko]

"Minor children, least of all those of such a young age as Obama was while in Indonesia, cannot renounce their citizenship. Nor can they have their citizenship renounced by a parent. The only person who can renounce one's citizenship is oneself."

This is a flat out lie!

Only a parent can do anything legally for a minor; that is the maening of "minor."

I of course haven't a clue what you base your remark upon, but I will personally rely upon what the United States State Department says about renunciation of US citizenship.  Specifically look at paragraph F. Statements like yours are exactly the kind that make for internet lore.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law that governs the ability of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily performing the following act with the intent to relinquish his or her U.S. nationality:

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).

B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, "claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States." See also Jose Fufi Santori v. United States of America , 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (1994) for a similar case.

A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances.

D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if they were not stateless, they would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). If found ineligible for a visa or the VWPP to come to the U.S., a renunciant, under certain circumstances, could be barred from entering the United States. Nonetheless, renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual back to the United States in some non-citizen status.

E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION

Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship will not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION

Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).

Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please consider the effects of renouncing U.S. citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and irrevocable action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact:

Express Mail:
Director
Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison (CA/OCS/PRI)
Overseas Citizens Services
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
4th Floor
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: 
Fax: 
Email:  ASKPRI@state.gov

Regular Mail
Director
Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison (CA/OCS/PRI)
Overseas Citizens Services
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
SA-29, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20520

[mlo]

"I've never asked anyone to accept my claims on faith alone."

BS. Most of your claims depend on being taken on faith, because they are not fully supported. And it's working for you because you have a willing audience that want's to believe.

[Red Steel]

Dude, here’s a clue. The NBC issue has never been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

[Michael Michael]

The question has nothing to do with Berg. The question was directed at you. You avoided the question. Why is it that Obama has not shown his birth certificate to a court of law? Do you know why? Do you have an opinion? I'm sure you do.

Why is the question directed at me? What possible answer could I give that would have anything to do with this issue? This is just trying to inject politics into it. The only answer that could have any meaning at all would have to come from Obama.

No it's not. The most obvious reason that Obama will not show his birth certificate is that he was not born in Hawaii. If it's "flat out wrong" remains to be seen.

There's nothing to be seen beyond Berg's claim in his lawsuit that even if Obama were born in Hawaii he lost his citizenship when he went to Indonesia.

Are you telling me that if Obama proves he was born in Hawaii that Berg will withdraw his claim that Obama lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia, and say "Oh, I didn't really mean that. I knew he didn't lose his citizenship when he went to Indonesia. I was just being silly."

[BrerLion]

neither the time nor the interest in slogging through 160 pp of “nonsense”.

I'm sorry, LJ, but immediately after posting THIS I decided to look into the COLB fraud issue. I did slug my way through the 160 pages, several times. A very large part of it is unreliable, in my opinion. I was looking for the best arguments within it, but gave up because it is really such a mess.

So I started looking at the Obama image documents myself, and eventually came to the conclusion that Polarik really should not be held in such high esteem. You can search my posts for the threads where the discussions took place. He has been abusive, but not at all helpful. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me.

[Michael Michael]

Is this correct? This is what the author of the 14th Amendment said:

John Bingham:

Bingham is irrelevant. He did not author the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That was added later as an amendment in the Senate, by Jacob Howard, who had no objection to the children born of non-citizens being citizens of the United States by birth.

Who to believe with regard to the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? John Bingham, or the person who actually authored it?

[HawaiianGecko]

"There's plenty of evidence that the FactCheck CoLB is a fraudulent." 
I personally haven't a clue whether it's real for fraudulent.  I know Polarik has spent an inordinate amount of time proving it a phony, so I'll side with him.  However, I'm not sure what that has to do with the location of the birth of BO.  It's not like you can run into court with a phony document to prove anything.  It's like spending 500 hours proving that the green car this guy says he drove in college was really chartreuse.  OK, I'm impressed, but this knowledge and $6 will get me a cup of Starbuck's coffee.

"I defy Obama show that CoLB that appeared in the FactCheck photos in a Court of law."  Hmmm... or what?  This sounds remarkably like the beginning of a challenge for a dick measuring contest on a playground.  It's questionable which would be more proof of his citizenship.

[little jeremiah]

I saw you post some photos but they didn’t make sense to me. I am not a tech person (tech dummy is more like it) but I tried to understand his analysis, and have it saved to re-read more thoroughly. The border and state seal arguments made total sense to me, as did some other aspects.

But the bottom line is this:

An image on a website means nothing. It can so easily be fraudulent that it has absolutely no meaning. None.

[Michael Michael]

When Obama admitted on his website that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, I noticed tht he did not mention anything about his Indonesian citizenship.

Given that he could not lose his US citizenship as a child, and if Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, then I don't see how he could have actually become an Indonesian citizen in the first place.

[BrerLion]

An image on a website means nothing.

YES! I mean, CORRECT!

And the COLB scan issue is NOT an Issue, for either side, IMHO.

[Michael Michael]

You expect the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics to lay out their security provisions?

No. What I expect is for claims about the seals to be substantiated. If the Hawaii Department of Health cannot substantiate those claims for security reasons, then those claims remain as I have already stated; based purely on unsubstantiated assumptions.

[Red Steel]

Why is the question directed at me? What possible answer could I give that would have anything to do with this issue? This is just trying to inject politics into it. The only answer that could have any meaning at all would have to come from Obama.

Follow the thread. The post was a clear response to your 628 post to my post 620. This is a political website as someone I believe has already pointed that out to you. So why are you here?

I asked for your opinion why Obama has not shown his BC in court unless you know why? I want to hear it. My opinion of why Obama stonewalls the issue: the obvious and likely reason is Obama was born overseas, as in foreigner.

There's nothing to be seen beyond Berg's claim in his lawsuit that even if Obama were born in Hawaii he lost his citizenship when he went to Indonesia.

Oh yes there is. We want to know where he was born.

Are you telling me that if Obama proves he was born in Hawaii that Berg will withdraw his claim that Obama lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia, and say "Oh, I didn't really mean that. I knew he didn't lose his citizenship when he went to Indonesia. I was just being silly."

I don't care what Berg is thinking. I'm asking what you think.

[BrerLion]

post 1011 was meant for you, guess I messed up.

[combat_boots]

ping to the JimRob, Kristinn DC We are Free People and want to stay that way mission.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2180833/posts

[Michael Michael]

He wrote the 14th Amendment. Bingham spoke of the intent and meaning behind his words. His words are in the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment is law.

"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" are NOT Bingham's words.

[Cyropaedia]

Why do you keep throwing up obfuscations to divert from the fact that the assertions made are based only on assumptions which have not been substantiated?

Pull your head out of your ass. If your going to make changes to the design of the state seal, then the time to do it is at the beginning of the year. New Year=new design for state seal.

While it's obvious that different certificates issued in different years used different seals, there's nothing to indicate that any change in the seal necessarily took place on January 1.

Then why do it in the middle of March...? Because they felt like it...? To help commemorate St. Patrick's Day...?

The "real" 2007 certificate has a different seal than Obama's 2007 certificate, and was released in March, just a few months before Obama's. And Obama's 2007 certificate has the same seal as the "real" 2008 certificate, which was also issued in June of that year. And without any evidence that any change in the seals took place on January 1, there's nothing to say that the same seal wasn't used between mid-year 2007 and mid-year 2008.

And if you honestly believe that, I have a bridge or two to sell you.

Look, with argument, differences between the two 2007 seals could always be accounted for by the changing of the seal design occurring after a given date. And that change could occur during any time of year. After all, there is nothing mandating that the change actually occur on "January 1st". In theory, a seal design could even last 13, 14 straight months, right? Even if both CoLB's were issued in June of 2007, that could still be accounted for change taking place in the middle of the month. After all, there's nothing that actually mandates that kind of change take place on June 1st, right...?

It's a disingenuous argument.

You really need to learn that saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

What I say is the absolute truth. There is no justification for withholding that document at this point. I've had to provide certified copies of my "long form" birth certificate ( the version that has the name of the hospital, the address of the hospital, the name of the doctor that performed the delivery, etc.) for a variety of functions. It was no problem at all. And I've never even run for the Presidency or any other public office. Obama can easily do the same.

John McCain allowed reporters see his original hospital birth certificate (which was being kept at the DHS) when there were questions regarding his eligibility.

[Michael Michael]

How fast did McCain show his birth certificate? Within about 2 days.

McCain has never shown his birth certificate to a court or to the public at large.

[Red Steel]

"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" are NOT Bingham's words.

But these are:

"find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, "that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…""

[Michael Michael]

Correct, but no one questioned it's validity either, and no one had a reason to.

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something.