Posted on 05/16/2011 7:39:44 PM PDT by conservativegramma
NEW YORK – Newly unearthed information about Hawaii's procedure for numbering birth records at the time Barack Obama was born casts further doubt on the authenticity of the short-form and long-form birth certificates published online with the president's authority.
Details about the registration procedure are significant, because some analysts have wondered how Obama could have been issued a registration number that is higher than the numbers of the published birth certificates of Susan and Gretchen Nordyke, which were registered three days later than the president's. But a 1955 article by Charles Bennett, Hawaii's registrar general in 1961, and George Tokuyama, chief of the registration and records section for the state's Department of Health, stated birth certificates were numbered immediately upon acceptance by the registrar-general.
When the local registrar was satisfied the birth certificate was complete, the registrar-general filed it by placing the filing date on the birth certificate and assigning it a number.
The date was recorded by an ink stamp that manually adjusted the date in the format month-day-year.
The certificate number appears to be applied with a Bates numbering stamp that advanced automatically by one number each time the stamp was used.
Bennett's and Tokuyama's description of this procedure shows that birth certificates were numbered upon acceptance by the registrar-general, and there was no provision that would allow an accepted birth certificate to be put in a pile for three days before a number was stamped on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Vattel only described what was already in practice in the 18th Century and earlier centuries. Killing the messenger in the form of Vattel does nothing whatsoever to change the meaning of natural born citizen as it was practiced in the periods leading up to the Constitutional Convention adn the adoption of the Constitution.
I’ll bet Hannity won’t ever be allowed to have the great Dr. Corsi on his Fauxnews show.
Right. Practices like the impeachment of Charles I. Thwop! Roll! By Act of Parliament. LOL!
The United States was a new idea. It was not about perpetuating old, inferior European traditions.
Anyone who could afford a plane ticket could get a Hawaiian CLB and US citizenship.
******
KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL, THE 800 LB. GORILLA IN THER ROOM?
It has been about 3 weeks since Obama released his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011 to a White House press conference.
But we still have not heard one word from KAPIIOLANI HOSPITAL---the 800 lb. GORILLA in the room--- verifying that indeed Obama was born there on Aug. 4, 1961 as it states on Obama's long form birth certificate. Why is it that we hear only deafening silence coming from Kapiolani officials over the past three weeks and still counting when it comes to this Obama long form birth certificate controversy?
1. I may have to eat my words later, but I am thinking the UNTHINKABLE: Kapiolani officials won't release Obama's mother's records because there were never any records to release in the first place.
2. That is, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, Obama's mother, was not a patient at Kapiolani Hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. And while Obama may have been born on Aug. 4, 1961, Kapiolani officials know that the birth did NOT occur at Kapiolani.
3. NOTE: Obama and Kapiolani officials could quickly drive a dagger deep into the heart of the birther movement and mortally wound it tomorrow by announcing a joint statement that Obama was born there on Aug. 4, 1961 and by allowing reporters from major news organizations to examine and photograph some of Obama's mother's hospital records. But you and I know it won't happen any time soon.
4.So why is Kapiolani still playing hardball when it should be a time of joy and celebration that Obama's long form birth certificate points to Kapiolani Hospital as Obama's birth hospital?
5. Again, let's start putting tremendous pressure on Obama and Kapiolani Hospital officials from now through election day Nov. 2012 to release Obama's deceased mother's records in order to verify that Kapiolani Hospital was Obama's birth hospital as it is stated on Obama's long form birth certificate that Obama released on April 27, 2011.
6. Yes, the 800 lb. GORILLA in the room, Kapiolani Hospital, could quickly put a dagger through the heart of the birther movement and mortally wound it tomorrow by issuing a joint statement with President Obama that Obama was born there on Aug. 4, 1961 and by allowing a select group of reporters to examine and photograph some of Obama's mother's records.
7. But right now, it looks like the 800 lb. GORILLA is trying to hide in the bushes and is not going to be saying anything about Obama's birth for a very long time, if ever at all.
8. NOTE ON NORDYKE TWINS: The argument that Obama's birth certificate was accepted by the local registrar on Aug. 8 but was NOT given a number until at least 3 or more days later does not make sense to me, because a Hawaii official, I think it was retired official Fukino, said that a number was given to a birth certificate on the day it was accepted/filed, which seems like a logical office procedure to me: Accept it and give it a number at the same time. A quick and simple office procedure.
She wrote “Stanley Ann Madelyn Dunham” on the line for who to contact in case of an emergency, and listed the relationship to hers as “Parents.”. She obviously meant to write “Stanley and Madelyn Dunham,” but since it was in all-caps and she was so used to writing “Stanley Ann” she wrote “ANN” instead of “AND.”
ping
Actually, it is obama who went all in when he personally authorized the release of the second fake looking BC. If that one is proven to be fake, he’s finished. Why do we have to jump through hoops in Hawaii to get a copy? He’s a 50 year old man for goodness sakes. What has he been using the past five decades? Most people have it safely put away somewhere accessible. Not him - he sends his lawyer to pick up a digital copy.
The United States was a newer adaptation of some centuries and millenia old "European traditions." Traditions such as the republican form of government founded upon a democratic citizenry exercising sovereignty through delegated authority. The jus sanguinius (right of blood inheritance) and jus soli (right of birthplace) were both ancient principles of law with origins at the very beginnings of civilization so many millenia ago.
The legal principle of natural born citizenship is as ancient as the multi-millenial jus sanguinius (right of blood inheritance) and jus soli (right of birthplace) customs. The Founding Fathers' usage of Vattel's Law of Nations was merely a very timely and useful summary and recapitulation of the already ancient practices as they related to the reaction against the divine right of kings as a source of a government's legal authority versus the consent of the citizens. Vattel translated and consulted earlier works to compile his treatise in comparison to those supporting the divine right of kings.
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section,
in the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen”.
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
See #109.
Welcome back, MG!
there is 52 death records in 1962 for barack obama
Must be a member to view...can you post the 52 records for us?
Is it just me or does it sound like they’re going after the he’s-born-here-still-not-natural-born concept?
The “Where’s the Birth Certificate” was a feint. Farah even said so last week on the Peter Broyles Show, the book was about Obama’s ineligibility.
Corsi punk’d Obama into releasing the LFCOLB in advance of the release of the book.
But ya know what? ... In conservative minds, Herman Cain will be weighed on his merits and abilities, and either elected or rejected. But his race will not be what gains an affirmative action! And I think Herman Cain would be just please as punch to have it that way. He has worked his way to where he is and wouldn’t want to be affirmative action promoted.
The Hermanator - possibly America’s first black president?
Here is something for you to think about...
If you wanted a damaging story to die, how would you go about it? Maybe you should address your accusers with any evidence no matter how implausible, ridicule them and then have something so big and important in the news that it will eclipse any rebuttal.
The Obama supporters and media came out on the day after the release and said that the issue was irrefutably resolved and that his detractors were either crazy or racists. They got in the last word.
Its almost like he knew that Seal Team 6 was gonna bag UBL, and seized the opportunity to bury his dirty laundry.
Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” states that RIDICULE is the most effect defense of an accusation, even if the accusation is true. And the LSM is all too happy to assist.
Exactly. What I said from day one but some kept throwing in distractions. Still, the most glaring problem, aside from his lies, is the Kenyan.
Corsi’s book sales and traffic should be the least of Obama’s worries; he’s been committing fraud posing as a ‘black farmer’ to claim money from Pigford.
And as is his partner in crime Moochelle...
Can you read???
Executive Summary Re NBC Defined in Constitution Plus 4 SCOTUS Cases
The money is in those off shore bank accounts and funneled to aid our enemies. But will it ever be proven with the courts and both sides covering for him. There’s not a single honest person in DC.
I can’t clearly read the SSN on SAD’s passport document you posted. Does it say 535-40-8522?
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.