It's Ms. Dr. Fukino.
Here she is at a "Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program" Day at Hickam AFB.
On either side of her are the Lt. Governor, James Aiona Jr and the 15th Airlift Wing commander, Col. John Torres. Photo was taken October 2006.
Posted on 07/27/2009 7:03:39 PM PDT by pissant
HONOLULU -- State officials again are confirming that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Monday she has seen the original birth records that verify Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a "natural-born American citizen."
Fukino made the announcement in hopes of ending any lingering rumors about Obama's citizenship. She issued a similar press release Oct. 31.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
OK, Snoopes.com says that the law exists but doesn’t apply to O since he was born in Hawaii. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
My lawyer wife says that the title doesn’t look right. If “7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301” is a law, it should have US Code reference. If it is a Federal regulation it should have a CFR at the start. She says that this looks made up.
So if he had only been 27 years old, and only resided in the US for 5 years, that would be OK with you?
Do you have a link to the US law code? I am search on Findlaw and it shows that there is no such law: “ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
I just think Hawaii was part of the misdirection this week and the WH was calling the shots. Otherwise, where did Hawaii officials get pernmission to release any details from a file they sauid was sealed except to OB?
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007) This is all that's in the article.
I used to have a direct link but can't find it. It's also been posted on these threads. There's been a slew of them.
Yes, basiclly. But it could just as well have been the father.
O’s mom was an American. So, even if he was born in Africa, he is still a natural born American (born of an American citizen). That is the legal definition according to my lawyer (wife).
Well, your wife needs to take another gander at the law, 8 USC section 1401, making note of the 1986 change in residency requirements for the US parent. If he was not born in the US, his mother was too young to pass citizenship on to him. But even in the more general case where the child would be a citizen, that would not be natural born citizenship. It would be the result of a law passed by Congress, which was only granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not to redefine "natural born citizen". Since it was via an act of Congress, it must be a form of naturalized citizenship.
“I wonder if she knows the requirements for a natural born citizen circa 1961”
“Those have not changed since The Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. That’s the day the Constitution was signed and passed by the Constitutional convention. “
You should know better. laws concerning how citizenship at birth is acquired have changed by US Statute and by Constitutional Amendment over the years, most notably by the 14th Amendment ‘birthright citizenship’ clause.
“There having been no amendments changing the defintion” - NB that the Constitution does not *define* “natural-born citizen” within the Constitution itself in the first place. You are not using Constitutional definitions but old English common law. Big diff.
It is certainly legally erroneous to use old English common law definitions of who is ‘natural-born’ and imagine that holds forever instead of the US statutory law and US Constitution definitions for birthright (natural-born) citizenship. US law and US Constitution always trumps common law, common law merely instructs as to the meaning and source of US statutory law.
14th amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Thanks for giving me the citation for the US law.
“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”
Wasn’t his mother 17 at his birth? If she was 15 and a half then it would apply, but not 17 since she was living in the US for more than than five years.
Even if she was in Kenya, she had lived in the US for more than five years, two after age 14.
(Not that I am a O supporter or anything. It is just that this stuff sounds crazy and Anne Coulter and Michael Medved both say this is a goose chase.)
Originally and possibly still, the "short form" process made sense. It was even done when the short form *information* was saved on written logs. It's much cheaper in terms of storage space, physical or computer memory (tape, disk, even punched cards) to just save the information, in character format, than an image of the whole thing. Microfilm/microfiche might change that, since it takes up so little space. But finding a single long form, on film or paper, takes time, and more time is required to move that image to paper. If all you have is the "abstract" data in a database, it takes up much less storage, and could be "on line", that is on disk or other media that is always available, rather than tape. But now memory, especially mass storage, is cheap and compact. So it now become possible to store the images, which take *much* more space. (There would be an intermediate possition, which would have all the information, except the signatures, from the Long form "on line) and and a printout made of that upon request, just as the current abstract (Short form) is printed. But if, as they indicated, the long forms are stored as images, there is no real advantage to the short form, in terms of accessibility and labor required to access and print it. It merely reqires much more mass storage memory.
Kenyan Ambassador: Obama’s Birthplace “Already Well Known In Kenya”
I wasn’t going to say any more about the Obama birth certificate controversy, but I found this intriguing.
Mike in the Morning, a radio talk show out of Detroit MI, (of all places!), decided to call the Kenyan embassy a little over a week ago, and talk about the reaction in Kenya to Obama’s victory in the 2008 Presidential election. I think it was meant to be a light hearted interview…it doesn’t seem like they went into this with the intention of making headlines. They started off talking to a secretary, but were eventually patched through to the Kenyan Ambassador, H.E. Peter Ogego. The pertinent part of the audio starts at 2:35:
Audio
My impression is that the question about Obama’s birthplace was meant as a joke… not to be taken seriously. But His Excellency Peter Ogego answered it seriously, and frankly.
A few things to consider in case you’re thinking this was some sort of prank:
1. The audio of this conversation (the first part of the call can be heard, here) is posted at the WRIF radio station’s website. I doubt the station would put its reputation and FCC radio license on the line for a hoax.
2. That sure sounds like H.E. Peter Ogego’s voice. Compare here.
3. Listen to the genuine surprise of the talk show hosts after the call.
The only argument that detractors can convincingly make, is that the Ambassador and most, if not all of Kenya’s citizen’s, including Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, (who claims to have witnessed his birth), are mistaken about this.
WND reports:
“At least two of his relatives in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya. In addition, the Obama machine has scoffed at requests to see the form of the Hawaiian birth certificate that includes the specific hospital in which the delivery took place. The form released by the campaign does not include that information, leading to suspicions Obama might have been one of the foreign-born babies of the 1960s who were, nonetheless, provided birth certificates by the state of Hawaii.”
And:
“Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence,” the document said. “The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.”
.
You may find this interesting also.
The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen” (Obama NOT nbc even if born in Hawaii)
It's not either/or it can be both.
What is less conservative than violating the Constitution? Nothing, especially to those who have sworn to protect and defend that document, even at the expense of our lives, our health, and sometimes even our family relationships. (Not in my case, but I know a lot of folks who paid that price). It's a pretty darned important thing.
Of course even if we see the BC, and it confirms the information on the released "CoLB", there is still the question of his father's nationality when he was born. OTOH, if the long form shows some other father.. well the man forged an official document, and committed fraud. That's a "high crime", and he should be impeached for it, but won't be. At best it would ensure that he doesn't get reelected in 2012, assuming there is an election, an honest one, in 2012.
You need a judge to say if you are a natural born citizen if your father was a foreign national. If he's not lying about who his father was, then his was not only a British National, but also not even a permanent resident alien, just a visitor. Being born in Hawaii would make him a citizen, but not necessarily a "natural born one". Judges need to define that term. More properly, they need to ascertain what that term meant in 1787-1788, when the requirement for the President to be "natural born" was written into the Constitution, and accepted by the legislatures of (at least) 9 of the original 13 states.
It's Ms. Dr. Fukino.
Here she is at a "Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program" Day at Hickam AFB.
On either side of her are the Lt. Governor, James Aiona Jr and the 15th Airlift Wing commander, Col. John Torres. Photo was taken October 2006.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...
Notice that they differentiate between a "natural born citizen" And a "citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.
I'd say that's pretty clear.
------------------------------------------------------------
Clear? I don't even know what the hell you're arguing. The clause, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution... only applied to those people who were alive at the of the adoption of the Constitution, and were eligible for POTUS by the requirement of age, but couldn't possibly be a natural born citizen since the country didn't exist yet when they were born. Once all of those people died, the clause becomes nothing more than an historical artifact which would apply to no one else. Do I even really need to explain this to you, since it's only a matter of common sense to anyone who reads the friggin thing....
That would be 19th birthday, she had to have lived 5 years in the US after her 14th birtady. Years/age: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, count 'em. Only on her 19th birthday would she have lived five years in US. She had not done so when BHO was born, a bit past midway of that 18th year, or 5th year after her 14th birthday.
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.