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?

[sometime lurker]

Somewhere in Honolulu, according to you, there is a hospital that can make the very prestigious claim to be the birthplace of the President of the United States. Just which hospital is making that claim? And if none are, why not?

I can answer the "why not" question. No hospital would make that claim nowadays because of HIPAA laws. It would leave them open to a whopping big fine and jail time.

[sometime lurker]

Here is a link - they were all over a few months ago, now harder to find. This one has the heading "Panama Canal Health Department," unlike another one I saw which was in Spanish.

[sometime lurker]

How do you know that the reselling and reshuffling of say OB-GYN data or cancer data from the same old set is not salable? Finding out is very basic stuff, is it not?

I can't say about OB-GYN data, but I doubt any researcher would buy the hospital's cancer data. Much more likely they'd use the Hawaii Tumor Registry established in 1960.

[editor-surveyor]

Blackstone discussed English law, the 14th ammendment says that the parents must be under US jurisdiction, which by treaty, requires the agreement contained in the visa application.

[22cal]

But I was defending your honor, Sir. :)

Seriously, in general I would agree to ignore them. However, sometimes it is such fun to point out the naysayers' unwarranted assumptions and fuzzy thinking. Not that they have a monopoly on that. The eligibility side often posts the unsubstantiated as fact.

Lurkers read the cogent replies, too, and learn.

[TigersEye]

And in the following weeks he still had no name and no one in the neighborhood ever heard about him. Sure.

[Michael Michael]

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.

That's absolutely correct. But that very fact begs a rather interesting question in my opinion.

Why?

Why is that the case? It had been known since Fact Check wrote their article back in August that the document was being kept at Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago. Why did no one who questioned the document bother to go there and ask to see it?

I've heard the excuse that they would never let anyone else see it anyway so why bother to ask? But that's just an excuse. Had someone bothered to ask and been refused, then they would have rather more credibility, and people might believe that those who were questioning it were actually trying to get at the truth, and that maybe Obama did indeed have something to hide.

But no one bothered to ask. They just kept chanting claims of forgery.

That is the most telling fact to me as regards this whole issue.

If they never would have let anyone else see it anyway, a golden opportunity was passed up here. They could have used Michael Moore against his own kind. They could have gone to Obama's Chicago headquarters with a video camera and taped themselves asking to see the document and being refused. Just like Moore had done with Roger Smith of GM in Roger & Me. They could have called it The COLB & Me.

SERIOUSLY!

Such a video would have been more powerful and connected to a FAR broader audience than all the press releases, lawsuits, blogs, appearances on Internet radio programs, and 160 page reports combined.

However as it stands now, NOT ONE of these people can even say so much as "I called and asked, but they said no."

Not even that!

It was that observation more than anything that ultimately convinced me that those who are behind and promoting all of this have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting at the truth. And I simply have no respect at all for those who have no interest in getting at the truth, which is something I hold above nearly all else, and ESPECIALLY above politics.

They're just jumping around like a bunch of children saying "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!

Look at me! I wrote a press release!

Look at me! I filed a lawsuit!

Look at me! I have a blog!

Look at me! I'm on the radio!

Look at me! I wrote a report!

BAH!

[HawaiianGecko]

  "Until he releases his original birth certificate with the details of the birth location and the signature of the attending physician (as McCain did when challenged), then I shall continue to believe he is hiding something."  I can and do fully respect personal opinions.

"The evidence cited which you implied validated his claim as a natural born citizen is useless for the reasons I explained."  I don'tbelieve I cited any evidence supporting either argument. I'm claiming there is no evidence he is not qualified to be POTUS, other than being inexperienced, a liberal, a Chicago politician and he came out of nowhere to become POTUS is just a couple of years.

What I'm getting at is this. People are grasping a individual threads of information and attempting to weave them into a full tapestry.  A huge amount of information in these "birth" threads is simply BS, but is accepted as fact.  People are claiming as proof that if he doesn't show his real BC then he must be guilty.  That is faulty logic in any discussion and there are dozens of examples that attempt to use this same faulty logic.   I call it Pajamanatti Derangement Syndrome brought on by an acute case of Rathergate^TM success.

A poster wrote "despite the countervailing evidence of a certified birth certificate, a birth announcement in the local newspaper.." and you responded with "You are correct in your assertions, but neither item are in any way proof of a natural born citizen."  You are exactly correct; it's not proof.  But by using the exact same logic, not one single piece of so called evidence drug up in the last several months is proof he is not.  That's the guts of what I was getting at.

The evidence he is natural born is not anywhere near as strained as the evidence he's not.  What makes more sense?  Flights exist between Nairobi & Honolulu, therefore, he was born in Kenya or a birth announcement in the local paper printed and publish 48 years ago?  The "no doctor has come forward" theory is simply ridiculous, but if that theory was true, that doctors remember the names of their patients, why hasn't a doctor in Nairobi come forward?  Oh wait! That doesn't support the theory being pushed, sorry.

Which of these two scenarios makes the most logical sense?  His mother visited her home town where she graduated from high school while she was pregnant, therefore, he was born in Canada and was snuck into Hawai'i by steamship, and Senator McCain's oppo-research staff covered up this information because John McCain is really a secret commie-liberal-rino, or Obama is a natural born citizen?

How many times has someone posted that someone had absolute proof of a conspiracy, even pointing to dates and times of announcements on radio stations (where the very existence of these stations depend on ratings) and then nothing is actually revealed.  It's to numerous and hilarious to even remember.

I'll end with a 'truth' that I cannot prove.  If you are a journalist with evidence that the President of the United States is not qualified to be president, I don't care if you are a composite of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro & Chavez, I firmly believe you will bring it to the public's attention.  What benefits you the most?  Having your career established for life or helping a guy become president that doesn't even know your name.  There is no story, there is no media cover-up, there is no evidence.

That was my point.

[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.

I don't see that it's been avoided by the plague. I mean, the only relevance of "natural born citizen" is with respect to the office of President (and peripherally Vice President). And the courts can only hear those cases that are brought before it. They can't just pluck some issue out of the air and rule on it all on their own.

There have only ever been 44 Presidents in the 200 plus years since Article II was written. The numbers simply don't give the situation much chance to arise.

So no, I don't see that it's been something that's been avoided like the plague.

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

Actually he could have seeing as there's nothing to prevent anyone from running for the office. The only restriction is on who may actually hold the office.

But with regards to Arnie, there's one thing I think everyone can agree on. That no one who is a naturalized citizen can ever be considered a natural born citizen.

[Michael Michael]

Here is a link - they were all over a few months ago, now harder to find. This one has the heading "Panama Canal Health Department," unlike another one I saw which was in Spanish.

That is not anything that was provided by McCain or his campaign. That is one of several documents offered up by Donald Lamb, who I had mentioned previously.

Here's a piece about him from 2002, published in the Panama News:

Colon property owners file criminal charges against Lamb

The Urban Property Chamber of Colon, a group of business and land owners in the Atlantic side province, has filed criminal charges against Donald Lamb and several of his associates. Lamb heads a group of individuals who claim to own stock in the old Panama Railroad Company, which was taken over by the US government in the early part of the 20th century as part of the construction of the Panama Canal, and which was transferred to Panama under the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Lamb and his followers claim that the 1904 and 1977 transfers were illegal and that they thus own vast stretches of property in the former Canal Zone. They have asserted their claims to such real estate as the ports of Cristobal and Coco Solo Norte by filing numerous lawsuits and registering claims to many properties. While in a few cases Lamb and his followers have prevailed in lower courts, such favorable judgments have been overruled on appeal. Last year, in response to Lamb's activities, the Supreme Court ordered the Registro Civil to eliminate all deeds in the former Canal Zone that do not derive from ARI's master deed. One provision of the controversial concession for Colon's multi-modal transport center requires the Panamanian government to indemnify the Consorcio San Lorenzo for any legal problems that Lamb's claims cause for the development. Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company.

Nice guy, eh?

[Michael Michael]

Blackstone discussed English law, the 14th ammendment says that the parents must be under US jurisdiction...

I don't know what Fourteenth Amendment you're reading, but the one in my copy of the Constitution of the United States says absolutely nothing about parents. It only refers to the person born or naturalized. To wit, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

Absolutely nothing about the status of parents.

As with Blackstone, you seem to be imagining parents where none exist.

[Polarik]

I know. I'm sorry for the confusion. Here's what I've been doing.

I refuse to talk to trolls directly, so when a fellow FReeper gets a comment from one who is trash-talking cracking about me or my research, I respond to the FReeper instead with a message meant for the trolls.

It drives them crazy. I've made similar kinds of general statement before, without maentioning names. But, invariably, one will immediately respond, acting indignant, as if my comment was specifically directed at him.

But, feel free to stick 'em all you want.

[mlo]

"That's all the law deals with, citizenship acquired at birth, not "natural born citizenship"."

The law doesn't recognize any difference between the two.

[mlo]

"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."

But those filings have asked for "stays" and "injunctions". The courts have consistently said "NO" and tossed them out.

[22cal]

Thanks. I was just using those two specialties as examples. My point was would the hospital make a one time sale and then destroy the files or multiple sales?

[mlo]

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

"Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."

"The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the ' the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. old confederation."

[mlo]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

[mlo]

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

A citizen at birth and a natural born citizen are the same thing. See the cites I just posted.

[editor-surveyor]

You really don’t understand “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?”

If it was “subject to the King” you’d love it though, huh?

[mlo]

"...the 14th ammendment says that the parents must be under US jurisdiction, which by treaty, requires the agreement contained in the visa application."

As previously explained, this is false. No alien gets to choose whether they are under US jurisdiction. "Under the jurisdiction" is defined below.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."