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?
He won the election but he still won’t release his birth certificate.
What’s so important that it has to be kept a state secret?
Thanks, and I agree. This decision makes it quite clear that "natural born citizen" means citizen at birth, and that the citizenship of the parents doesn't matter.
Apparently you don’t know how businesses work.
People get annoyed that I keep posting the picture, but comments like this continue to get posted.
He has released his birth certificate. There are pictures of it on the internet.
Some conservative philanthropist offers to build and finance a new wing at the hospital where Zero was born - provided, of course, that they can provide proof of his birth.
Go look it up yourself and quit be so lazy.
I think a lot of publicity for the NBC cases could be raised by having someone in Congress propose a plaque be set in front of both of the two hospitals where President O "is thought to have been born."
Then stand back and defend them both as not significantly different from what was done for President Lincoln with the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Site. Or at least a National Historic Landmark.
Even someone like Ron Paul could introduce a bill in the House without fear of embarrassment.
Once the bill is introduced, there would be no reason for any Democrat to oppose it, since it commemorates and honors the current Democrat president.
Once the bill is passed, Obama would be forced to sign it (or else what?). Then the National Park Service would be compelled to vet the proposed site or landmark for historical accuracy, if that had not already occurred during the bill's passage through Congress. The NPS historians would then be directed by Congressional order to Hawaii State records to dig up and examine the O COLB for the true historical birthplace location (even if they are sealed).
Once the notion of a historical site or landmark is fixed in the public eye, not even O could stand in the way of honoring his own birthplace, or standing in the way of Congress honoring his own birthplace...
Unless, of course, he is a poser.
>>>> No, my answer is legally correct. It is as defined by the person that created the term. The term has only constitutional meaning; it has no other purpose.
Actually, no, sorry but your are wrong, in both legal and practical constitutional terms. By operation and application of law, our constitution means what the courts, and eventualy the SCOTUS say it means. Areas such as the rights of speech have ben expanded, and “rights,” although not even enumerated, such as “the right to privacy,” are now consdered consitutional guarantees.
There is a very beneficial aspect to us in this, usually overlooked by Conservatives.
For example, the Constitution makes no provision for changes in technology when dealing with rights.
For example, we are guaranteed fredom of the press, but TV and radio use no presses. There is an implied, infered and assumed “freedon of the news media” in the Constitution. If there was not, government censors could legally require that of every word and picture in the evening newscast be approved before it they were broadcast.
There are guarantees of “Freedom of the Press” and “Freedom of speech,” but there is no guarantee of “Freedon of Typing” or “Freedom of the Internet.”
We are very lucky that constitutional terms are not only created by the person who wrote them, but are subject to expansion and interpretation as needed. We do not always agree with the interpretaion, but without that power, there probably would not be a FreeRepublic!
Again, you make no sense.
Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as it stood in 1961, 0bama wold NOT be a natural born citizen if born abroad because neither of his parents could confer that status.
His father was a foreign national, and his mother was too young.
The law was subsequently amended removing the age restriction, but that does not "grandfather" 0bama in.
I believe it is the amended law to which you erroneously refer. That version of the law is not a factor in this discussion.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
-30-
As you can see, it's more than just those born within the 50 States.
In addition, not everyone born within the 50 states is a citizen! For example, a child born in the US, where the father or mother is a foreign diplomat accredited to the US Government, here on official business, with a spouse of the same foreign nationality, is NOT a US citizen!
But of the 70+ plus medical/hospital people involved in the supposed care, plus neighbors, co-workers, workers at the wellfare office, wouldn’t SOMEONE remember... or even just lay claim to remembering??????
Your argument about the newspaper announcement is irrelevant.
As Sibre Fan correctly states “they took their information directly from the Health Bureau Statistics”.
Therefore, all the announcement confirms is that 0bama’s birth was registered with the State. We already knew that.
What we DON’T know is the information on that Birth Certificate. And it could be that he was was Foreign Born, in which case, despite having a valid Hawaiian Birth Certificate he would NOT be a “natural born citizen” under the provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act in force in 1961.
Got it?
Please see the current US law on the subject in post 312.
§338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State. (a) 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 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. (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate. (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]Source
This is the law that lets people in HI register births that didn't occur in HI. I believe the notation at the end (L 1982) refers to the year the law was enacted, in this case, 1982.
Am I wrong? Is this not what the number "1982" means in the law? If so, then it seems it's just another baseless internet rumor that "at the time of his birth, Obama's mother could have registered his birth even if he wasn't born in the state of HI", which makes a LOT of what still fuels the controversy to this day quite moot.
The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they?
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
There is a typographical error in the amendment now under consideration. The word "State" in the eleventh line is printed "States." It should be in the singular instead of the plural number, so as to read "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State" (not States) "wherein they reside." I move that correction be made.
People are probably getting annoyed because you clearly don't understand.
The "pictures on the internet" you refer to are NOT his Birth Certificate.
His birth certificate is a document created in 1961, probably filled in by hand, at the time his birth was registered and has the signature of the attending physician and details of the place of birth such as the name of the hospital.
The document you refer to is a "Certification of Live Birth", a computer generated short form document that lacks vital information to prove his natural born citizen status.
I've been lurking for a while, and that has been addressed, though you might not have seen it. The HIPAA laws about patient confidentiality forbid giving out such information, or at least Kapiolani Medical Center thinks so:
"We don't have plans to do anything," said Kapiolani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama's family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961.
"We can't confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that's because of the HIPA law."
I'm in the medical field, and I know that many hospitals and physicians are extreme about this, possibly beyond what they really have to do, because the penalties for violation are severe. Also, the bad publicity for HIPAA violation would be far more damaging than any prestige from being "the birthplace."
thanx
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.