Skip to comments.Birther Questions & Answers
Posted on 04/25/2011 9:19:23 PM PDT by MrTim29
This past weekend millions of Americans celebrated Easter, a day filled with colored eggs and chocolate bunny rabbits otherwise known as the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Something else that rose from the dead this weekend was the issue of President Obamas birth certificate. On Saturday morning, the Associated Press released an article titled, In Hawaii, Accessing Some Obama Birth Info Is Easy, in which the author suggests that that just about anyone can walk into Hawaiis vital records office and see Obamas birth certificate information, or someone with a tangible interest could pay $10 to receive a copy of the Obamas certification of live birth. According to the author of the article, problem solved everyone who suggests otherwise is a crazy birther, right? Well, not so fast there Associated Press
I am so tired of arguing with uneducated people on the facts of this topic, that I decide that I would compile the information in an easy to use format.
TOPIC: Who are Birthers? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Conspiracy theorists, Tea Party activists, crazy Republicans WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Skeptics over President Barack Obamas citizenship FACT: People, of all political backgrounds, who believe that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States based on questions surrounding his citizenship
TOPIC: Where did the Birther movement begin? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: From rumormongers, prior to the 2008 election, who were disappointed that Americans were not buying that Obama was Muslim, so they assigned his place of birth as questionable in order to sway the election. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: They cant necessarily point to where the movement began. According to polling data, Republicans initially did not question Obamas birth status; however, as time has marched on more Republicans are beginning to question his status. The latest New York Times-CBS News poll found that 45% of adult Republicans said they believe Obama was born in another country, and 22% said they dont know. Only one-third of Republicans said they believe the president is native born. The same poll a year ago found that a plurality of Republicans believed the president was born in the U.S. FACT: Obamas birth certificate initially became an issue during the Democratic Primary in early 2008 when Hillary Clinton supporters, from a blog called The Blue State, began questioning Obamas eligibility to be President.
TOPIC: Obama has made public his birth certificate. WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama said, I cant spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama is not showing his real birth certificate FACT: Hawaii has two ways to prove citizenship. One way is by producing the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, which is the short form computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a persons birth that can be printed out at any time. The other way of proving citizenship is by producing a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, which is the long form original birth certificate document produced at the time of birth with the name of the hospital, hand written dates, signatures of the doctor, the registrar, the director of health, and the state registrar. Obama has not produced his Certificate of Live Birth.
TOPIC: Why does Obamas birth place even matter? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The question is moot because he was born in Hawaii. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama is not qualified for the presidency because he is not a natural-born citizen. Furthermore, his father had British/Kenyan citizenship. FACT: As per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution it states, 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 A naturalized citizen, whether naturalized at birth or after birth, is not so eligible. In other words, anyone who is born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens, is definitely, without doubt, a natural born citizen. Therefore, Obama would 100% be required to be born in the United States in order to be eligible for President.
TOPIC: Obamas true birthplace WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama was born in Hawaii WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia FACT: According to the Certification of Live Birth, Hawaii has Obama in their system as being born in Honolulu. Because of Hawaiis permeable system, many foreign born people and/or relatives of foreign born people sought and received U.S. citizenship via Hawaiian birth certificates up until 1972. Until the actual Certificate of Live Birth is produced and inspected, nobody can say with 100% certainty they know where Obama was born not even Barack himself.
TOPIC: The Nordyke Twins born a day later than Obama, received lower file numbers WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The Nordyke twins got lower lower number because they possibly took longer to deliver than Obama. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Birth Certificates issued to the Nordyke twins shows their registrations number precedes the number given to Obama, even though Obama was born a day earlier. FACT: The birth certificates issued by Kapiolani shows Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. and was given No. 151 61 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 61 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. However, Obama was given a higher registration number, No. 151 1961 10641, than the Nordyke twins, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961. Although born a day later, Obama was entered into the system on August 8th whereas those born a day later were entered in the system on August 11th.
TOPIC: How did Obama get in Hawaiis system? WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Obama was born in Honolulu and a birth certificate was issued upon birth and entered into their system three days later. WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Upon learning of his birth, Obamas grandparents, who were living in Hawaii at the time, filled out an application, presented it to a representative to the Secretary of Hawaii and swore a witness testimony that he was born in the Honolulu. It was entered on August 8th. FACT: Due to the fact that the Hawaiian Islands are home to many Polynesian indigenous people whose customs and traditions did not include western medicine and hospitals, and the fact that many did not live in close proximity to hospitals, the state made it possible for those born in Hawaii to later obtain birth certificates. Unfortunately, this made it was possible for foreign born people to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate simply by submitting an Affidavit to the Office of the Secretary stating they were born in Hawaii. This was most famously done by Chinese born Sun Yat-Sen, who would later become the Founding Father of Republican China. This practice evolved and in 1911 became a law that allowed foreign born person to be registered as though they were born in Hawaii. All that was required was to simply fill out an application, be presented to a representative to the Secretary of Hawaii and have a witness testimony that could include family and friends. The practice continued until 1972. Obama is in the system either because he was actually born in Hawaii or his grandparents submitted an application on his behalf to the Secretary of Hawaii and swore a witness testimony that he was born in the Honolulu. Since Obama refuses to produce his Certificate of Live Birth for inspection, nobody can say with 100% certainty they know why Obama is in the system not even Barack himself.
TOPIC: The two birth announcements in the newspapers WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Both of Honolulus manor newspapers, the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin, published announcements in August 1961 documenting Obamas birth in Hawaii WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Birth announcements were probably submitted by Obamas grandparents who knew that he would have a better life as a U.S. citizen than as a citizen of another country FACT: The Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin did publish announcements in August 1961 documenting Obamas birth in Hawaii; however, these announcements were not submitted by the family, they were automatically issued whenever a certification of live birth was issued. Once Obamas name was in the system, the birth announcement was issued, usually the same day by the Health Department via a news service. Additionally, the address for the birth announcement, which occurred three days later, was 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., an address that belonged to Obama grandparents.
TOPIC: A statement by the former Hawaii Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, confirms she has seen Obamas birth certificate WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The director of Hawaiis Department of Health confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Dr. Chiyome Fukino is biased. Also, she is a medical doctor and does not have any forensic or legal experience. She issued a legal and factual opinion based on a document that may or may not be accurate FACT: The actual statement was, I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago . Dr. Fukino did not attest to seeing the actual Certificate of Live Birth, but rather Obamas vital records. According to Governor Abercrombie in January 2011, the definition of vital records was reduced to an unspecified listing or notation of Obamas birth that someone had made in the state archives and not any type of birth certificate at all.
TOPIC: Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: Fact checking websites like Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears state Obama has proved his citizenship WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears have a left wing bias FACT: The only thing Snopes, FactCheck and FightSmears have proven is that Obama has produced a Certification of Live Birth, not the Certificate of Live Birth
TOPIC: Obamas social security number, 042-68-4425 WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The zip code for Obamas address in Honolulu was 96814. Danbury, CT is 06814. Keypunch error is a much more plausible explanation. Also, looking at the actual database entry for the 1890 date shows it associated with the building Obama lived in while at Harvard. Its a building in Somerville built in 1890 WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Obama has never visited or been in Connecticut prior to campaigning for President, and as such it is impossible for him to have that social security number. If Obama was Hawaiian born, his social security number should start with 575 or 576 FACT: Obama social security number is in deed 042-68-4425. Other than the 1980 Selective Service registration, the first time Obama used the 042 number was in 1986 in Chicago. Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life. There is no record of Obama visiting the east coast until he was 20, in 1981
What can be derived from the facts? Certainly one thing nobody knows where Obama was actually born. Anyone who says they know, whether they assert he was born in Kenya or whether they assert he was born in Hawaii, cannot with 100% certainty. Obama himself only knows what hes told. What we do know with 100% certainty is that he is in Hawaiis system. Thats it. End of story.
Is it plausible that Obama was born in a foreign country and his grandparents knew that he could attain a better life as an American citizen so they submitted an application on his behalf to the Secretary of Hawaii and swore a witness testimony that he was born in the Honolulu? Absolutely. Is it plausible that Obama was actually born in Honolulu and his stubbornness for not releasing his Certificate of Live Birth is for no good reason? Absolutely. The only thing that is certain is that until that Certificate of Live Birth is produced and inspected anything is plausible.
So, thanks to the Associated Press, real estate tycoon Donald Trump, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii, MSNBCs Chris Matthews, several state legislatures all across the country and Obamas continued refusal to produce his Certificate of Live Birth the issue isnt going away. In fact, it is gaining legitimacy. A book due out on May 17, 2011, titled Wheres the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President by Jerome R. Corsi promises blockbuster information based on years of research and digging by the nations top private investigators that will be devastating to those who believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
Its the issue raised from the dead, and it might just give people something more to celebrate than colored eggs and chocolate bunnies in 2012.
Nice, orderly summary.
Thanks for producing it.
When Jerry Corsi’s book comes out in May, it may contain some more information on this question.
We will just have to wait and see.
The Connecticut Social Security Number issue is both interesting and troubling. Has the Social Security Administration said anything about it?
Easy summarized points to use when talking to your idiot drooling ‘friends” who still drink the Obama Kool Aid...like Robert De Niro.
Missed an important tidbit
In order to be a natural born citizen, not only must the person be born on US soil, but BOTH parents MUST be US citizens at the time of his birth.
Although it is common knowledge 0bama’s father was a Kenyan, thereby British, citizen at the time of his birth, there is no formal documentation of this.
Not without the long form.
So, everything would be OK if The Kenyan's daddy was a U.S.A. citizen. Say, a Mr. Davis?
One word of caution to all of us who have been long time “birthers”.
I have noticed that “newbies” - the sincere ones - are sometimes treated like obots just because they come lately to this issue.
We have spent three years earning our spurs, we should not hack the newbie to bits.
I ain’t easy teaching people facts that we know by rout.
We were all there once with all the same questions - so, “get them educated.”
If I had been bashed about the way some of the newbies are now.........well, I wouldn’t have gone on to uncover some enormous anomalies that occurred with the obama newspaper birth announcements, and most especially- the Birth Index books in the Honolulu Dept. of Health.
You might want to add "...or Canada" to this.
Welcome to FR.
This is absolutely false.
This house belonged to Orland LaFarge & Thelma Young, who died recently.
My father lives three blocks from there.
You look geared up and ready to rumble. Something rare among most newbies.
That has never been tested in the courts. Currently, if someone is born on US soil, they are automatically a citizen regardless of who the parents are (with a few exceptions such as diplomats accredited to the US.) We have birthright citizenship based on jus solis.
“Additionally, the address for the birth announcement, which occurred three days later, was 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., an address that belonged to Obama grandparents.”
“”This is absolutely false.
This house belonged to Orland LaFarge & Thelma Young, who died recently.””
Please don’t overlook the fact that OBAMA SR. never lived at the address listed as his own in that birth announcement.
Citizenship by statute is NOT the exact same thing as natural born Citizenship.
A created citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen.
Fantastic and thorough research. Question re the birth announcements: Have you considered looking at other repositories for the Hawaian newspapers beyond the LOC and Hawaii? For example, large university libraries?
Currently, we have three ways to acquire citizenship: (1) jus solis or birthright citizenship; (2) jus sanguinis or by blood, i.e., being born to two US citizens overseas or to an unmarried US woman citizen abroad (and now there are new regulations governing US citizen fathers for births abroad;) and (3) naturalization. The first two are automatic citizenship. Some could call it natural born citizenship.
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ''a natural born citizen'' in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. Whatever the term ''natural born'' means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ''naturalized.''
Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ''[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States'' are citizens. Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .'' This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.
There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ''case or controversy'' as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.
While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment) -- and news reports dealing with presidential eligibility almost invariably misstate the rule in this manner -- the majority opinion of legal experts seems to be that the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).
The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.
Whenever I see this cite of the 1790 Act, without being followed by a recognition that the Act was repealed and replaced with that of 1795, I'm dubious. The "natural born citizens" language was removed, with just "citizens" in its place.
The enumerated powers of Congress do not allow such an Act. Congress is limited to enacting "an uniform rule of naturalization." Statute law, in other words.
One thing a natural born citizen isn't, is naturalized. Or a citizen created via statute.
That the first Congress believed the matter to require addressing via the 1790 Act indicates that they understood the term natural born citizen not to cover individuals born "beyond the sea." Their attempt to address the matter collided with the separation of powers and enumerated powers under the Constitution, however.
The 1790 Act was unconstitutional and was recognized as such, having been repealed and replaced with language that did comport to enumerated powers.
Discussion of Orland and Thelma:
Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661 -666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672 -675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
We can speculate all we want about the definition of natural born citizen. Right now, if you are born abroad to two US citizens, you are an American citizen with all of the rights and privileges that implies. We don't have natural born citizens as a separate class from those who receive citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis. There are only two types: natural born (automatic) and naturalized.
The issue of defining natural born citizenship as a criterion for eligiblity for the Presidency has never been decided in the courts. It will have to go to the courts eventually. By 2050 one in every 5 residents of this country will be foreign born compared to one in 8 now.
I would add a topic on date accepted vs. date filed COLBs.
COLB’s with a mother’s signature, doctor’s signature and administrator’s signature are attestations a live birth took place and a sworn statement they are willing to testify about the event if called into a legal proceeding. The registrar “accepts” the attestion and notes the date accepted on the COLB.
A COLB filed is a situation where a court has ordered the vital record information to be filed with the registrar after testimony was heard in court. The registrar cannot accept the evidence because the registrar did not examine/hear testimony of a live birth. The registrars only option is to file the information in the court order.
The Left makes some argument about birth registrations from field hospitals and the vital record application is filed at the main office in Honolulu. Not true. The registrar “receives” documents from field offices.
i said nothing about being a regular citizen
the issue is about being a NATURAL BORN citizen. the definition of which is common knowledge and only ‘murky’ to those attempting to skirt the requirement
the founders purpose was to insure we never got someone with foreign allegiances in the office. for if we did, they would undoubtedly work against the best interests of the country.
kind of like what’s been happening for the last 2 years.
Wrong! Being a "citizen" isn't the same as what the Constitution is talking about. Both parents have to be citizens, period! Sr. was no doubt a British citizen which would not allow his son to EVER be "natural born." The founders used Vattel's definition of a natural Born citizen on purpose to make sure the president wouldn't have mixed feelings about his fealty to the US. Until we see who the mother claimed the father was, we can't legally know who the father was. We don't know if she even named the father. If she did name Obama Sr as father, he was married to a woman in Kenya while married to Jr's mother. We do not recognize bigamy as a legal situation in the US.
Obama's mother entered school within 2 weeks of his alleged birth in Washington state.
All of these things need to be flushed out in court. The tricky thing is the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". If he has no "legal" father, can he fit the definition,.....I don't know. If Sr. is his father,...definatly not. Some have suggested that Frank Marshall Davis might be his father as he was in Hawaii and hung around all the communists and admitted to be a pedophile. I'm sure a young 18 year old Dunham would attract a sleaze bag like him, but we don't know without a BC. At least it would take the birther thing out of the way if it was him. As far as I know he was an American citizen. If the BC says he was a Muslim, he would be legal but it might embarrass him. The same with being listed as "white" on the BC. Having a white mother and a black father in 1961 was pretty tough and maybe mom didn't tell them he was black. My personal opinion is Sr wasn't even there when Jr was born. Mom and dad weren't even together after he was born as far as we can tell. They attended school in 2 different states. We can't know what is on the BC until he shows the BC. It looks like mom dumped the kid with grandma and dad left completely at birth. I would want my president to at least get some therapy before taking office if that's the case.
The canard of saying he is just holding it back and spending $2million to keep it hidden to embarrass the GOP is wearing thin. He is a public servant. When you have a third of the US thinking you aren't legally the president, that is a problem that can only be fixed by showing the BC. Hiding it any further is pretty much admitting he can't produce one, or he knows it won't pass Constitutional muster.
Just as a PS on the last post, we have to get this straightened out because what is coming up next is some anchor baby running for president that can’t speak English and thinks Mexico should get 4 or 5 states given back. “Natural Born Citizen” is in the Constitution for a reason. Just being a citizen isn’t a very high bar in this day.
Sten, you are on the right track. Were Barack Obama Sr. a citizen, there would be a public record. There is a best selling book and a man claiming to be President of the U.S. who has told us his father was a British subject when he, the son, was born. Barack has told us he is not eligible by our ‘old’ Constitution to be president, but there is no one willing to accept his admission.
There is no doubt. It is amazing to see the inability of so many presumably literate people to trust their abilities to reason. What else can anyone believe when they can read the words of Chief Justice Morrison Waite in the first few paragraphs of one of the most important Supreme Court Cases on women's suffrage, Minor v. Happersett, from 1874:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
World Net Daily has figured out that they will make lots of money by publishing a book supporting the diversionary tactic which Progressives have used so well to obscure the truth. Perhaps they too are cynical about the intelligence of the public, and figure they might as well make some money from the campaign - "Where's The Birth Certificate." Were they serious their billboards would have asked something like "Were mom and dad both citizens?" or "Dreams From My Father the Alien?"
Many justices, including Wong Kim Ark's Horace Gray, have repeated the truth: “Citizens are either natural or naturalized”. From our common-law, as Justice Waite explained, comes the only definition every used by our Supreme Court - “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Barack told us “I am a native-born citizen of the U.S.” His statement is from Title 8 US Naturalization Code, and is simply the admission that he was born on our soil, but not of citizen parents. He has the same status as Wong Kim Ark, based upon the 14th Amendment; he is a citizen, born on our soil. Some will claim native-born citizens are the same as natural born citizens. That means that anchor babies are eligible to be president. That means that the baby born to natural-born British subjects would have been eligible to be president after 1788. That is nonsense.
Obama was not born of citizen parents, and is ineligible. Every U.S. Senator signed Senate Resolution in April of 2008, agreeing the natural born citizens were born of citizen parents. SB 511 sponsored by Democrats on Obama’s campaign committe to convince people who might have paid attention during the eight years of questions about McCain's eligibility, that he was eligible. The Senate said McCain was eligible because of a condition, U.S. citizen parents, which Obama didn't satisfy. Those who know try to avoid the subject, but they all know. They are all afraid of the prospect of removing the ineligible black man. It is reverse racism, and fear of the thug enforcers of the left, and fear of the media who will continue to mislead those too busy working to read about our history. From SB 511 Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen, Chertoff replied. That is mine, too, said Leahy.
14th Amendment originator, Congressman, Judge Advocate at Lincoln assassination conspiracy hearing, John Bingham explained natural born citizens to the House in 1866, because the 14th Amendment has no effect on natural born citizenship, but would express the Constitution's mandate, Article 1 Section 8, to establish a uniform code of naturalization - who were the naturalized citizens:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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 .
These are facts. The exotic life of Stanley Ann, her connections to the Geitners, the hints of connections to all sorts of characters from our past, make a more exciting story than the philosophy of our founders and framers. Ignoring the wisdom of our framers who were so concerned about foreign intrigue, and who employed a very old principle to try to insure the allegiance of our Chief Executive is costing us terribly. Learning the legal truth of Obama’s ineligibility does not prevent anyone from trying to learn about his past. It is full of intrigue, probably by design, to keep your attention off the ball. The book would probably still sell very well. But if our citizens cannot understand our Constitution, they will have deserved to lose its protections.
Bingo! McCain was born at the public hospital in Colon, Panama about a mile from the PCZ. BTW, the PCZ was never considered U.S. Territory it was merely leased from Panama. Carter decided not to renew the lease.
There are scholars on both sides of the issue. The fact is that it has never been challenged in the courts. Until then, it is just speculation. McCain was the Rep candidate and the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution saying he was eligible to run under the Constitution.
There is no need to speculate upon the "definition" of natural born citizen. It's spelled out quite clearly in at least four Supreme Court cases.
Please cite them.
What the number of foreign born residents of the United States has to do with the price of tea in China is something you might need to spell out.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
What this means is that we will have a growing population of citizens born here of immigrant parents who are not yet naturalized citizens. There will be growing pressure to amend the Constitution to reflect that reality. And no doubt, there will be questions raised when some of these children wish to run for President.
On a personal note, my daughter was born abroad while I was on assignment as a diplomat. I would hate to think that my daughter is ineligible to be President or that someone in the military like Admiral McCain could have his children ruled out similarly while abroad in the service of his country. We will just have to agree to disagree about how the courts would rule in such instances. The bottom line is that this is all speculation. There is no definitive consensus on what a natural born citizen is. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The Connecticut Social Security Number issue is both interesting and troubling. Has the Social Security Administration said anything about it?
They are being sued by Orly Taitz refusing FOIA requests...
You might want to add “...or Canada” to this.
Peace Arch Hospital maternity ward expands
“Have you considered looking at other repositories for the Hawaian newspapers beyond the LOC and Hawaii? For example, large university libraries?”
Actually, there appear to be very few copies of these microfilms.
We have tracked libraries that have both films for those dates to five libraries. The three I have collected from and the other two are in NYC, and Chicago. I think there may be a sixth set, but I don’t know where.
There are a handful of libraries that have one of each film. Berkley CA, and the State library in CA also has one each. A lib. in HI has one.
The bottom line is that there are not a ton of these. I believe we have it tracked to about nine or ten films for each newspaper for those dates.
Ten films happen to be how many service copies can be made from the master negative.
That birth announcement in the two newspapers contemperaneously with Obama's birth is probably the strongest argument in favor of Obama being born in Hawaii. Of course, we know that there are other factors involved that could make those announcements meaningless in that regard, e.g., the address, the apparent differences in copies, how Hawaii registered births, etc. I wish we could destroy this "evidence" definitively. You have done a great job in laying out the facts. Lots of smoking guns.
“TOPIC: A statement by the former Hawaii Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, confirms she has seen Obamas birth certificate WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The director of Hawaiis Department of Health confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Dr. Chiyome Fukino is biased. Also, she is a medical doctor and does not have any forensic or legal experience. She issued a legal and factual opinion based on a document that may or may not be accurate FACT: The actual statement was, I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago . Dr. Fukino did not attest to seeing the actual Certificate of Live Birth, but rather Obamas vital records. According to Governor Abercrombie in January 2011, the definition of vital records was reduced to an unspecified listing or notation of Obamas birth that someone had made in the state archives and not any type of birth certificate at all.”
Did you see this thread, ch? Lot’s of excellent info. Definitely puts a finer point on Fukino’s statement. What DID she see? How can we make any reasonable evaluation of her statement, unless we know what ‘vital records’ she talking about?
Just as important, what DOES she mean by, ‘Natural Born Citizen’??? If she’s using the term the way I understand it, she’s telling us that a British subject was NOT Barry’s father. [Unless you think the Framers put that phrase into the Constitution specifically to protect the right of future British subjects to spawn American presidents.] Is she desperately trying to signal that Barry’s baby daddy was a citizen? That would blow Dreams from my Father out of the water, wouldn’t it?
All told, her statement is worthless. W’out legal/factual clarification, it’s just mud in the water.
Yes I have that bookmarked and chief engineer get all the credit.
First thing. The microfilms could very easily be forged. Very easy to do. Below you’ll read some info on microfilm production. Just be aware that although the type of film used to make service copies was changed in the 80’s, you can still get the vintage film. Even on Ebay.
The thing that my collection of copies proved beyond doubt is that the stories behind the “ORIGINAL DISCOVERIES” of obama’s newspaper birth announcement were absolutely false. Especially the first person that claimed to have gotten their “copy” at the HI State library in person. The copy they sent around could not have come from the film in that library. The copy that was supposedly emailed to “Lori Starfelt” could not have come from the film it was purported to be copied from. (By the way, it is said that Lori Starfelt died the day before Trump began speaking out about the birth certificate-and she was a filmmaker)
So, why were the stories made up if the films were on level?
We do know that when mothers check out of a hospital they are asked if they would like the announcement printed in the paper. Usually there is a little form that is checked off or signed. In addition, parents could then, and now, call in the info. In fact the Honolulu Star Advertiser still allows family to do that, just NOW A DAYS they claim to require that you provide documentary evidence of the birth before they will print the announcement. I’ll bet they didn’t back in 1961. Hell, I bet they didn’t require all that three years ago.
Butterdzillion did a better breakdown on the relationship between all of the “original discovered” announcements. It supports my findings-I did mail her second gen copies of all my original copies so she could do her own research with them.
This is just a little info on microfilms and how they are made:
1980s and 1990s
Kodak introduces polyester-based microfilm, which quickly becomes the new standard. The old “Kodak Safety Film”, which used an acetate base, had a giant drawback - the acetate begins to break down into acetic acid, otherwise known as vinegar syndrome.
Master Negative (also called:Camera or Archival or Original) The original microfilm taken directly from the microfilm camera. This is the generation that is considered for permanent archival storage.
This is the archival copy, which is used to produce a duplicate negative (see below) for the generation of use copies. The master negative should be stored in a different location from secondary copies and under conditions as close as possible to the ideal. The only subsequent use of the master negative should be the reproduction of a duplicate negative lost to damage or disaster.
Duplicate Negative (or Print-Master Negative)
This copy is almost always silver-gelatin. The duplicate negative is used to generate use copies (see below) for the collection. It should be stored under the best available conditions, since it serves as a working master, to protect the master negative. Ideally, it should be physically separated from use copies.
Use Copies (or Service Copies)
Any of the available media or formats may be acceptable, and images may be positive or negative. Good storage and handling will extend the life of use copies, thus protecting previous generations of microforms.
CNN shows the address at 2:40 in this report
Does not look like a house. Media lies!!!
No - she understands like most people do that Obama is a NBC because he was born in America.
Now, I understand you feel differently, but please don’t be offended if I disagree. While no expert, I would be more willing to entertain the idea if a single conservative group like the The Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society agree with you. Your definition of NBC doesn’t appear to be accepted anywhere else except birther sites. Know I know you have elaborate conspiracy theories to explain that away, but that is another conversation.
Which is why the Registration Number and other info needs to be extracted from the COLB of Stig Waidelich,born August 1961, which was featured on CNN Propagana piece piece yesterday. The
It is barely readable on the internet video, but might be readable off a DVR of the telecast.
Whoa, James—you’re not even trying to hide it anymore. I admire your chutzpa.
I have no elaborate conspiracy theories. I just want to see some—preferably all—of Barry’s hidden records. I also realized that Fukino’s statement tells us exactly nothing; it is useless.
A statute, even an early one, cannot define or alter a phrase in the Constitution. Contrary to your assertions, the legal authority of the early years of this republic is quite clear that the phrase as used in the Constitution means and was intended to mean born in the United States of two parents both of whom are citizens of the United States. There is no majority of legal authority that the phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is identical in meaning with 14th Amendment citizenship. Can you cite any? The early statute to which you refere was quickly repealed, one of the reasons given being that it wrongly attempted to define and alter the Constitution.
Only if you ignore the distinction, very important to the Framers, between “subjects” of the crown and “citizens” of a republic.
What is the difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen?
What is the difference between a natural born citizen and the acquisition of citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis?
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.