Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Born In The U.S. ? New Facts And Questions Say; 'Probably Not!'
Source? Sherlock Holmes | MB26

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?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aconspiracy; artbell; barackobama; berg; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizenship; colb; conspiracy; constitution; coverup; crackerheads; democrats; democratscandals; eligibility; frivolouslawsuit; frivolouslawsuits; hawaii; ineligible; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; obamatrolls; obamatruthfile; orly; orlytaitz; scotus; skinheads; taitz; tinfoil; tinfoilhats; truthers; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 1,461-1,479 next last
To: 22cal
"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)."

You are insisting on reading something into clearly written words that simply isn't there. I don't know why you are doing that.

I'm not making any implication. I am specifically and clearly stating that the analysis is "amateurish" and "nonsense".

Neither implies fraud. "Amateurish" means it is unprofessional. "Nonsense" means it is wrong.

521 posted on 02/06/2009 5:49:42 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Try this then:
You’re a real nut case!


522 posted on 02/06/2009 5:50:53 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
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...


I know how to get their address and phone number. I was asking who you spoke to who told you this so I can contact that person and confirm that they had said that they have no record of his birth.


523 posted on 02/06/2009 5:51:18 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“A person born here to non-citizen parents can only be a citizen if those parents were here under a resident alien visa, and thus having surrendered to the laws of the United States, IOW, there is no such thing as an “anchor baby.””

I’m sorry, but this is patently false. Pregnant Mexican women are always crossing over into California to deliver their babies. Those babies are citizens and are entitled to benefits. The government then has a hard time deporting the mothers, because they can’t deport the citizen infants, too.

Now, SCOTUS may have to rule on whether these babies are “natural born” citizens, but they are most definitely called “citizens”.


524 posted on 02/06/2009 5:53:19 PM PST by canaan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: canaan

No, it is not false.

The media created the Anchor Baby fraud.


525 posted on 02/06/2009 5:56:50 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I’m 66 yrs. old, was born at home on a Sunday morning and Dr. Becker delivered me.

My Mother said afterwards the good doctor finished reading the Sunday newspaper at our house.

It was 1942 and my Dad was in the Navy.


526 posted on 02/06/2009 5:57:47 PM PST by pickyourpoison (" Laus Deo ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
It's not "naturally born", it's "natural born" a term not defined in the Constitution, but probably well understood by the founding fathers because it was part of the common law.

The definition cannot be changed by simple passage of a statute by Congress. It means whatever it meant at the time that the Constitution was written.

527 posted on 02/06/2009 5:59:54 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Well what is un-natural born in 1776 to 1786?

Child not born of man?

Born on the outside of "nature"?

Interesting question.

528 posted on 02/06/2009 6:11:01 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: 22cal
Here's the bottom line that is all we need to know.

NO INDEPENDENT PARTY has ever seen, in person, a real, paper COLB for Obama containing the information as posted on the Internet.

There is not one shred of evidence that this document exists. NONE.

There is, however, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that a bogus COLB was manufactured for Obama and posted to the Internet -- Hawaii had nothing to do with this forgery.

FACTCHECK, owned by Annenberg, is a shill for Obama. Always has been.

Anyone who says that Obama's real COLB was posted on the Internet and that Factcheck verified it, is a liar and a fool. They never read my Final Report and they never will. They don't have the mental capacity to do so. Heck. They ask me to read it for them and explain it for them, too.

They only know how to lie and repeat the same things over and over like a dumb parrot.

I've called them out several times, telling them to put their money where their big mouth is. They've chickened out every time.

The only way to shut these gutless wonders up is to not respond to them at all. Let them talk among themselves.

529 posted on 02/06/2009 6:12:02 PM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
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.

Actually he would not be a citizen at all, unless later naturalized. That's all the law deals with, citizenship acquired at birth, not "natural born citizenship".

530 posted on 02/06/2009 6:12:40 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

We’ve got a witness although I guess Obama would destroy her credibility if he needed to... his grandmother says she attended his birth in Kenya. When all else fails throw another grandma under the bus.

It’s a stupid easy case and apparently our political machine is too danged defunct to understand or care. So now we have a foreigner in office and nobody with any authority gives a rats rear. Remember, there are plenty of Repubs in office and in power that could have brought the case and raised the questions but for some reason...

maybe Arnold oughta try going for it. After the Obama debaucle, who could contest it?


531 posted on 02/06/2009 6:12:43 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xero
Well lets check the aunt that Obama just threw under the deportation bus?

LOL.

She likely could use a few grand.

532 posted on 02/06/2009 6:13:25 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Try this then:
You’re a real nut case!


Why? Because I can read?

What is your problem anyway? It was you yourself who got this started. You told mlo to "pick up a relevant copy of Black's and read up, so that you can quit making foolish proclamations." I replied saying that when I looked it up in Black's a few years ago, it said that a natural born citizen was someone who was a citizen by birth, i.e. jus solis.

Then bvr chimed in and said "Look up the BLACKSTONE." So I did. And Blackstone's definition was also jus solis. You said it wasn't and then told me my reading comprehension was extremely low. So I provided more from Blackstone which made it unambiguously clear what it meant.

And because of that I'm a nut case?


533 posted on 02/06/2009 6:14:48 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
...every lawsuit has been tossed out of court.

No most have not been. They have been denied "stays", denied consideration before lower courts acted, and denied "injunctions", but the base cases mostly still remain.

534 posted on 02/06/2009 6:18:18 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Well what is un-natural born in 1776 to 1786?

If we go back to Blackstone, if you were not natural-born, you were an alien. Or you were a citizen by way of naturalization, i.e. born elsewhere but later naturalized as a citizen.


535 posted on 02/06/2009 6:18:38 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
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.

Obama has presented no less evidence than any other candidate, and he has been no more evasive than any other candidate in recent history.

Obama is being evasive as to where he was born,

Not at all. He has always said he was born in Hawaii.

and that the contemporary media is reporting conflicting information as to what country

Not true. All that is happening is that some fringe internet sites with zero credibility are reporting unsubstantiated rumors of a birth in Kenya. That's it.

and what hospital he was born in.

I'll give you that one. There appears to have been some confusion as the precise hospital. I don't see why that matters, however, given that the hospital is irrelevant to his eligibility.

to the extent of hiring lawyers to shield the information instead of simply releasing the information,

Your premise that he his hiring lawyers to shield information is not true.

536 posted on 02/06/2009 6:32:00 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

Thanks, fanfan. I clicked on the link and found this message:

“You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book.”


537 posted on 02/06/2009 6:32:02 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
  Ten dollars says the doctor never knew the name of the baby he was delivering. The vast majority don't.  A huge number of women don't know the name of their child when they're born.
538 posted on 02/06/2009 6:38:09 PM PST by HawaiianGecko (Online internet polls are foolish: Winston Churchill, 1939)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
Well that convention under British common law may well rule here in any future case, but the interesting part is it seems that no one wants to define what natural born means.

They avoid it like the plague it seems, in our judicial system.

Just to think! Arnold the Governator could have run for the presidency!

539 posted on 02/06/2009 6:44:20 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
The issue here is that he entitled to the benefits of current law or the older, whichever is more beneficial to him, unless specifically denied by a new, now current, law.

The law did specifically deny retroactivity, it only applied to people born on or after November 14, 1986, To be a citizen, if born outside the country, his mother would have needed to be at least 19 years old. She was not. (the US Citizen parent needed to have lived the country 10 years, 5 of which had to be after their 14th birthday, as opposed to 5 and 2 years in the current law).

Again, that's to be a citizen, which is not the same as a natural born citizen.

BTW, the section of the US Code is Title 8,CHAPTER 12,SUBCHAPTER III, section 1401 The law which changed the residency requirements in 1986 stated: “The amendment made by section 12 shall apply to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.”

540 posted on 02/06/2009 6:48:33 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 1,461-1,479 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson