Posted on 07/01/2008 1:03:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
Fellow Blog Talk Radio compadre David Zublick over at Heading Right says, “Maybe Not“.
I noted back here that when Kos produced - not a birth certificate - but a certificate of live birth there were several discrepancies noted that pointed to the fact - aside from the convenience - that the document was most likely forged. Since Obama has failed to produce a birth certificate, in-spite of several calls to do so, is telling indeed.
I was born in 1958 in the State of Florida and I can get a birth certificate for ten bucks. I doubt Hawaii was so backward in 1961 that it cannot produce a copy that he could show.
The news orgs are NOT looking into this, but some of us can snoop where others cannot. We’ll see what we can find. Fellow Blog Talk Radio compadre David Zublick over at Heading Right says, “Maybe Not“.
I noted back here that when Kos produced - not a birth certificate - but a certificate of live birth there were several discrepancies noted that pointed to the fact - aside from the convenience - that the document was most likely forged. Since Obama has failed to produce a birth certificate, in-spite of several calls to do so, is telling indeed.
I was born in 1958 in the State of Florida and I can get a birth certificate for ten bucks. I doubt Hawaii was so backward in 1961 that it cannot produce a copy that he could show.
The news orgs are NOT looking into this, but some of us can snoop where others cannot. We’ll see what we can find.
UPDATE: Looks like some have filed the ole FOIA request to force the issue. Meanwhile Doug Ross thinks it’s legit.
One note, Certificates of Live Birth are NOT considered proof of citizenship in many states including Florida, while in other states it is.
Again, why not then just produce the damn certificate, it clears up the whole thing. Until we see that, the issue isn’t closed.
I have plenty of far more serious concerns about people and events in Obama's history.
Are you talking about being a citizen, or natural born citizen? That is the difference according to the Constitution.
Then it becomes the deception that matters most, and I do think that is a big issue. Yes, I have plenty of other weightier reasons that I think Obama should not be President, but if someone lies about their birth all the way to this point in a Presidential campaign then that is very disturbing.
Or perhaps it will be found that Obama never explicitly lied about his “birth” and merely said he grew up in Hawaii, then Indonesia, then Hawaii?
I don’t know whether or not he is “on the record” about his place of birth, but it sure would be very very strange to have someone within (possibly) months of being elected President and the public knows so little about him.
The fact too, that one can discern a faint seal is meaningless. Could the document been originally someelse’s that was doctored? Why is the serial number blacked out?
Well we haven't talked about the birth certificate itself for a while.
A birth certificate is a certificate by the authorities who have custody of the official records of what those records show. So a "certificate of live birth" would be fine--that is what a birth certificate is.
The official records will in fact show a bunch of stuff that is not usually on the certificate and it would be nice to get a look at what those records show but the threshold issue is just a certificate.
My photoshop guys tell me that there is no seal on the certificate period--so I don't believe the fairy tale about bleed through.
There is evidence, you should review the several daily threads on this issue, of where the birth certificate the campaign is using came from. It was in fact created with Photoshop from someone else's Birth Certificate.
It is posted in a photobucket of screen name Opendna whose real name is probably Jay McKinnon with a reference name of I. B. Aphorgerie. And photoedit demonstrates that this form was used to produce the document published as obama's BC.
The serial number was a problem for them. They didn't know and couldn't find out enough about the numbering system to get a number that would have been credible. If they had been able to guess, that would have been a problem because a guess that was wrong wouldn't fit the date and time they chose (August 21, 7:42 PM); a guess that was correct would have been a problem because it would be the true number of a certificate of someone else's birth. So they were stuck.
They won't produce a certificate because they can't. Reason they can't is because he was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii.
Natural born. See my post #95.
Don’t have an opinion if he was born out of wedlock. But if he’s LYING about it, that’s a problem. If his parents weren’t married, he just needs to be upfront about it. But if he’s been lying all this time about his past, how can we trust anything that comes out of his mouth?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23841816/
Wouldn't military records have details on where's McCain's family lived when he was born?
How about the legality of Hussein's run? Are any of his former neigher’s still alive to give anecdotal details on his infant-toddler years? Obviously McCain and his team understood the importance regarding the legality of his run for the Presidency.
Hussein and his team on the other hand defend his ability to run for President via fightthesmears.com. lol
OK. So Obama's mother was 18 when he was born and had lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years prior to his birth, at least two of which were after she turned 14. In other words Obama could have been born on Mars and he still would be a natural born citizen.
There have been times I have been tempted to wonder if you are a troll although you have been around for a while. This specific issue has been addressed several times the last few days while you have been around and you should be presumed to have read the material.
Your description above is clearly wrong. Here again is the actual legal:
("If Obama was born in Kenya or Canada, with a US citizen as a mother, then under section G and possibly E, he’d be a citizen, as long as Stanley had been in the USA for at least a year. So even if his BC showed he was born on Ganymede or the Mars Colony, he’d be considered a “natural born citizen”.")
No sir, I don't think so.
Sec. 1401(e) is applicable only to "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States". Kenya is not an outlying possession of the United States and (e) is therefore not applicable.
Sec. 1401(g) is the applicable statute. In 1961 when Obama was born, the five and two year rules and the 14 year age rule were ten, five and 21 respectively. Sec. 1401(g) was modified by Pub. L. 99-653 which was effective with respect "to persons born on or after November 14, 1986." So the modification doesn't apply to Obama.
The flush language at the end of (g) ("[t]his proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date") is applicable only to that part of (g) beginning "Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States. . . . " which has no application to the present situation.
Thus if he was born in Kenya, absent a naturalization proceeding, he isn't a citizen at all.
I want to point out again, that the citizenship statute is not determinative of the question of whether he is a "natural born" citizen for purposes of determining whether or not he is eligible to serve as President under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4. That's a separate question determined by reference to Constitutional law and not Congressional legislation.
But under the statute, he flunks the citizenship test also.
No. If he was born in Kenya, he is clearly not a citizen absent a naturalization proceeding. See the law above.
This keeps coming up also. And maybe you are correct but I think that less than likely.
He gets elected and installed. Then, his every official act gets challenged in court by someone who doesn't like the provisions. I tend to doubt the establishment is likely to let it get that far.
And in fact, there are individuals with a much greater investment in the issue than you and I have who are looking at it tonight. So likely we will ultimately hear about it.
I think you are right about the “proviso applicable” etc. at the end of subsection (g.) Which brings us back to whether there is any compelling reason to believe he was not born in Hawaii. So far, I haven’t seen it, but will follow the threads to see if anything comes up...
Well I looked at Obama's entry in Wikipedia and that says Kapiolani Medical Center. I looked at the hospital's website and it appears that it was named after Queen Kapi'olani so Queens and Kapiolani might well be one and the same.
And what are they waiting for? I'm sure we'd all like to see them.
He simply isn't eligible to act as President under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4.
Yes he is. Even if he happened to be born in Kenya, his mother was a U.S. citizen and he is a natural born U.S. citizen through her.
Unless there is an attorney on this thread who can correct my reading of 8 USC § 1401, I believe that he would be a natural born citizen even if he were born in Kenya.
I'm still wondering why some seem to think he may have been born in Kenya, though.
Well Phat I am an attorney and I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. And your reading of 8 USC Sec. 1401 is dead wrong. The law is set forth in #148 above in this thread and I encourage you to read it.
Summary of the evidence that he was born in Kenya is set out here in a number of posts. The ultimate point is that there is a fair amount of evidence in support of the proposition that he was born in Kenya; the only evidence he was born in Hawaii is a forged birth certificate. So to me, the line of inquiry seems pretty clear.
Really? Kapiolani Medical Center opened in 1989. The Kapiolani woman and children center in 1890s.
Google lists them as two different hospitals...
That's yesterday's news. McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen for the same reason Obama would be had he been overseas - McCain's parents were citizens. The whole circus of McCain's constitutional qualifications is a non-issue.
That is one of the biggest reasons the alleged birth certificate is suspect—where, pray tell, is there verification of the seal and signature on the back of the KOS scan?
Yes, thanks, I read your other post. As far as the birth in Kenya, all I have seen is references to various rumors. I’ll be very interested to see if they turn into something more. If there is anything to it, it sure makes the legal challenges to McCain’s eligibility look like a set-up, no? With Obama’s enthusiastic support of the legislation backing McCain?
As to McCain's legal capacity to act as president under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the U S Constitution, that is not correct.
First place, according to a post above, McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital 460 yards from the base. That's probably correct since in 1936 when McCain was born, there was no hospital on the base. So he wasn't born in the US even under the Congressional fiction that bases are US territory.
Further, even if he had been born on the base, in my opinion, the Supreme Court would still hold he was not eligible to hold the office of President because the Constitutional test cannot be resolved by Congressional citizenship legislation.
McCain is clearly a citizen. But I think he flunks the Constitutional eligibility test to be president.
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.