Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by 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?
Yeah my source is the Health Bureau Statistics - thanks for pointing that out:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
“Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.”
So you can see per Hawaii’s own health department allowing amended certificates and certificates issued for persons BORN OUT OF THE COUNTRY (let alone Hawaii) requiring a ‘birth certificate’ prior to an annoucement being placed in the paper is worth dog doo proving a birth actually occurred IN Hawaii.
As I said, you come up with an announcement like the Indianapolis Star which comes DIRECTLY FROM LOCAL HOSPITALS then you have something - until then - nada.
Mindbinder26, welcome to the club. Thanks for using the very Conan Doyle “the dog that didn’t bark” story analogy I (and probably others) used months ago.
Also note the presence of constant yapping terriers like mlo.
“Natural Born” is a legal term of art, and not the meaningless tripe mongrel harrier mlo and others from the kennels of the crocked claim it to be.
bookmark
I forgot to mention, the law people cite supporting this was passed in 1982.
Nobody said it was meaningless. But it doesn't mean the parents have to be citizens. And calling people names doesn't support your argument.
Certainly not if we use a “reasonable man’s” definition of “reasonable man”. :)
Bookmark.
No, that is a propagated falsehood!
Which is? And what's your proof?
I mean british columbia connection. lol
Yes they do have to be citizens. Its very plain and spelled out.
Go look for it if interested.
I’m just waiting for one judge to investigate Obama’s one original birth certificate, compare it to the COLB and other documents- and Obama is removed from office.
Why don’t you pick up a relevant copy of Black’s and read up, so that you can quit making foolish proclamations?
If I can add to a thought from someone earlier today...
If you were the administrator of either of the two mentioned hospitals in Hawaii, wouldn’t you have researched everywhere to try and prove that Obama was born there? That would be great advertisement.
The fact that neither has bragged about it is not proof, but certainly points to the fact he was not born in either.
No offense taken. Just pointing out that one was printed in the paper. Now if the press was as interested in Obama as much as they are with Sarah Palin, they could do research and find out how the newspaper received birth notices in 1961. From the hospital, from the health department, from private parties, etc.? And if from the health department whether it was from the original birth certificate or some "certification of live birth" subject to manipulation/interpretation as has been discussed above.
It is spelled out where? What are you talking about? There is no law requiring parents to be citizens for someone to be a citizen.
"Go look for it if interested."
How can I look for something you haven't identified? It's your claim, you need to cite it.
If you have something that supports what you claim then produce it. You can't just declare something foolish just because.
I can back up the things I am saying.
First of all, this article was written to address the very specific question of, "Can a person born of two citizen parents overseas serve as President of the United States?" This is not the exact question begged by the current situation with Obama (at least not on this thread), but the article does address nicely the question, "Can a person simply born on US soil, of either two aliens, or one alien and one citizen, serve as President?", which seems to be the issue you both are debating currently here, in this thread.
The relevant passage is below, from section IV entitled, "The English Common Law per Wong Kim Ark".
Although the Court did not specifically address the presidential Natural‐Born Citizen Clause, it nevertheless made reference to the Clause and proceeded to explicate the 14th Amendment in light of the English common law.
snip...
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States' and "natural‐born citizen of the United States'... . The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
The purpose of the Supreme Court delving into the English common law in Wong Kim Ark was to determine the citizenship status of a man born in California to citizens of China. 72 In 1894, Wong Kim Ark left the United States for a visit to China, returning in 1895 only to be refused entry on the basis that he was not a citizen of the United States. 73 Concluding that Wong Kim Ark was a United States citizen, 74 the Court explained "the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance," 75 or jus soli. 76 This principle meant that anyone born within British dominions was deemed a natural‐born British subject, regardless of parentage.
snip...
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural‐born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. 81
Relying on United States v. Rhodes 82 the Court reasoned:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural‐born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural‐born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law [*361] has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. 83
The Court recognized that at the time of the framing of the United States Constitution and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, other sovereigns held to a rule of jus sanguinis, 84 allowing citizenship to pass by parentage. (de Vattel's writings for example, which are often bandied about on FR as "proof" that NBC's can only be born from two citizen parents)85 However, the Court was steadfast in its support of the British rule of jus soli whereby citizenship is acquired by country of birth. 86
The Court also stated:
there is ... little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. 87
While the Court's finding in Wong Kim Ark decided only whether an individual born on American soil was deemed a citizen at birth per the Fourteenth Amendment,...etc.
The article then goes on to address the specific question it was written for, namely the issue of "natural born status" of a child born to two citizen parents overseas. (which is not relevant here, for this discussion, if we are simply granting that Obama was born in HI).
If we do grant that he was born in the 50th state, the issue seems to be settled and unquestionable. As the article itself states (which can be found here), again, "...the Court's finding in Wong Kim Ark decided...whether an individual born on American soil was deemed a citizen at birth per the Fourteenth Amendment..." To me, this is proof that there is over 100 years of established precedent for the so called "anchor baby", and to state otherwise (i.e., to confine the definition of "natural born citizen" to that of only two citizen parents, regardless of the location of birth) is unwarranted.
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.