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?
Holding court and planning to attend the inauguration are not equivalent to having the press or other foreigners asking them questions and answering them. DId you not see those articles? The Kenyan gov. representative, don’t remember his name or title, announced that no one was allowed to talk to the Obama family without the permission of the government. If you can’t find those articles, just keep looking. They’re there.
Exactly. I’m off to walk the cats and do some other useful things that need doing!
(I have two blind cats and two seeing ones, and they like to go for walks with a human.)
It’s been discussed numerous times. I’m not here to do peoples’ homework for them.
You said — “Even if they had been previously natrualized, the child would be natural born...but BHO’s father was not a citizen at all, nor did he ever become one. One citizen parent doesn’t cut it, in most circumstances. He was was British subject at birth, and if born in the US also a US Citizen, but probably not a natural born citizen. If not born in the US, then not a citizen at all, under the laws of the time. Unless later naturalized of course.”
For such arguments to be spoken so clearly and so nonchalantly, it’s amazing that the courts have not been able to “pick up on it”... :-)
And — there — you see..., is the problem. You get zip and nothing, unless this is ruled on by a court of law. I think it’s very obvious now that no court is going to rule on this.
Maybe I’ll take mine out for a “drag” too!
With all due respect, you can't be serious. A reasonable person, if he or she is a voter or federal government worker, and takes his or her responsibility seriously, would ask for evidence that Obama is qualified under the US Constitution. The current situation is that, at a minimum, Obama is being evasive as to where he was born, and that the contemporary media is reporting conflicting information as to what country and what hospital he was born in. As to your assertion that he was vetted no less rigorously than any other recent President, whether or not that is true, it can be asserted likewise no other recent President has been as evasive as Obama about where he was born, to the extent of hiring lawyers to shield the information instead of simply releasing the information, and in any case there seems to be no other President in recent history to which the question of whether or not he was Constitutionally qualified to be President arose during his term of office (not to mention in the first weeks of his term of office).
So by the public record alone, your reasonable person test fails, since the public record yields conflicting stories about where Obama was born.
Beyond this, consider the following analogy. Let's say you are a manager hiring an employee for a critically important position your company and a requirement for the position is that a prospective employee for the position be a college graduate. You ask the employee if he is a college graduate and he responds: (1) a headhunter already responded to that, so I need not answer it here; or (2) yes, but I do not have to show you any proof since you lack standing, or (3) he declines to respond to the question. Would you or any reasonable person then as a manager conclude that that person is qualified for the position?
If I were such a manager in such a position, I would conclude that the prospective employee is being evasive and so cannot be trusted with the responsibility of the critically important position. Are you arguing differently? If so, what is your reasoning?
You asked for "evidence to the contrary." I provided evidence to the contrary, via UPI.
Are you now saying the UPI is unreliable ("not clear") when its article states that "Obama described his birth..."?
Do you think would UPI lie or cover up or confuse its readership in regards to reporting an alleged statement by the President of the United States? That is a stretch. That is not reasonable.
If you are asserting that a close Obama family member (O's half-sister) is wrong concerning such a fundamental fact of her half-brother's life, please provide evidence to back up your assertion that she is in fact wrong.
Yeah, watch our jobless rate take another surge and the courts might give this case the lookover it should have.
Well, to be fair, you’re only attending to part of the statement, and misrepresenting it as people “being shut down”. It was reported that Kenyans could not talk about him without governmental permission. That his grandmother was talking about going to his inauguration doesn’t disprove that. Logically, she could have had permission to say what she was going to say.
"So your statement""That analysis is amateurish nonsense..."
"does not mean he is being called a fraud?"
No, it doesn't. It means the analysis is amateurish and nonsense.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature.
Its not over until the fat lady sings. The more people that are disgruntled about Obama, the more people will be lookinng for ways to get rid of him.....legally.
Its getting crowded under the Obama Bus, he just threw all the USS Cole killed sailor's families under the bus.
I hope he keeps it up.
Who did you speak to there that told you this? Can you give me their name? I'd like to call them and verify it.
Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children - 1319 Punahou Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 (808) 535-7000
Ask for General Medical Records.
Let us know what you find...
Your implication is not directly stated, but is clear to me. Someone who would post ‘amateurish nonsense’ and try to pass it off as research would be a fraud (see definition).
Medical records are required to be kept for 25 years.
No medical records are available prior to 1983.There is no record of Stanley Ann Dunham in 1961 because there are no records of anyone in 1961.
Thanks for playing.
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.