Free Republic

I’m glad there’s another sane voice around here. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Refresh my memory,

but wasn’t there an investigation done and none of the hospitals in Hawaii have any record of him being born there?

There were some unsubstantiated claims to this effect. But the hospitals wouldn't have been able to have given out that information in the first place.

Then you havent seen the unaltered document wise-ass.

You do not know what the blacked out portions say, and since you havent inspected the original, you do not know whether it was permanently altered ro not.

The document posted on odumbo’s website is invalid on its face. Alterations are plainly evident, which invalidate the authenticity of the document.

The "ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE" is referring to the PAPER DOCUMENT ITSELF. The paper document hasn't been altered. And the scanned image isn't a document at all. It's just a scanned image that was put up on the website for dissemination to the public.

Now he can simply give a material copy to the court as evidence, after all...

No court has asked for it and no case has ever come to trial.

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?

What bad publicity? The only time it gurgles up beyond the conspiracy echo chambers, the whole idea just gets ridiculed. So what bad publicity are you talking about?

How dare you inject fact into my rumor-mongering!

Sorry about that. It's a rather nasty habit I picked up from the rotten excuse for parents who raised me.

If only I'd been adopted by that nice Goebbels family that lived down the street...

All of your arguments that I scanned rest on a faulty assumption: that the COLB as pictured on BHO’s site is a true copy.

And I don't recall seeing even THAT much from any of other candidates in the race.

So let me get this straight. No other candidate offered up as much as Obama did. Not a peep out of anyone. Obama offered more than any of the other candidates offered up, only to be sued in federal court demanding he produce what no other candidate offered up.

Why? Because of an Internet rumor for which there was not one shred of credible evidence to support.

Try to wrap your mind around the fact that what’s pictured on his site is just an alleged copy of his COLB.

Have you seen the photographs?

Photograph 1

Photograph 2

Photograph 3

Photograph 4

Photograph 5

Photograph 6

Photograph 7

Photograph 8

Photograph 9

There’s a very slight possibility that BHO did fake up the COLB as shown on his site.

You're only able to say that because he DID put something up on his site in the first place. Which is more than any of the other candidates did that I'm aware of. So why wasn't anyone demanding that the other candidates put something up on their sites? Why did no one seem to care at all about the birth certificates of any of the other candidates?

Just for the sake of argument, if we assume that he did do that, then your entire argument falls flat.

You can make the same sort of assumption about anything, regarding anyone. So why is such an assumption only made with regard to Obama?

Anybody have some hip waders I can borrow? rivang piles the BS pretty high.

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

De Vattel was of no relevance with regard to citizenship in the United Stats. The foundation of citizenship in the United States was the English common law both during the colonial period, and after our founding. The English common law is jus solis, which meant that if you were born in the United States, you were a citizen of the United States regardless of the citizenship of your parents, unless your parents happened to be ambassadors or foreign diplomats residing in the United States at the time of your birth. In that instance, you were not a citizen of the United States. This too comes straight from English common law.

The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

The founders simply wanted to exclude naturalized citizens. And this too comes straight from English common law, where naturalized citizens were not able to hold political positions such as in the Privy Council, or in Parliament.

The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.

Again, it was simply to exclude naturalized citizens, who would otherwise be able to serve in the House and the Senate.

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”

Readers should take note of the fact that rivang is being completely dishonest with you here through the use of selective editing.

What rivang doesn't tell you is that the 1795 Act he cites here has to do with children born OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. Not those born IN the United States.

Further, along with the children born outside the United States to parents who were US citizens, it also includes children born outside the United States whose parents were not even US citizens at the time they were born.

Here's the COMPLETE text from the 1795 Statute that rivang dishonestly keeps from you:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling in the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

In other words, children who were born, say, in Russia, to parents who were Russian citizens, but whose parents came to the United States and became naturalized citizens before the children were tweny-one years old, were considered the same as children born outside the United States to parents who were US citizens.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”

Again, rivang is being dishonest here just as he was with the 1795 Act. Again, this applied to children born OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

Please note that BOTH the 1790 and 1795 Acts refer to children born outside the United States to parents who were US citizens. However the language was changed from "natural born citizen" in the 1790 Act to simply "citizen" in the later 1795 Act.

What happened between 1790 and 1795?

The ratification of the Tenth Amendment. That's what happened.

The Constitution only gave Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The Tenth Amendment made it clear that Congress may only do that which it is constitutionally empowered to do. Basically, Congress overstepped its bounds in the 1790 Act by declaring certain people to be citizens other than naturalized citizens. After the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, those same persons became simply "citizens." Naturalized citizens.

1. then why wouldn’t obama produce the cert that would put everything to rest?

It would put nothing to rest. It would only spawn another generation of conspiracies.

If his mother did not provide the father’s name and race, the hospital would default to the mother’s race.

The BC says that Barry is “Caucasian”!

There's no provision for the race of the child on a Hawaiian birth certificate. Race is only given for the parents.

I think the explanation for Obama not showing the original birth certificate from Hawaii, which porobably does exist, is simple.

It was common practice to put the fathers religion as the child’s religion on the birth certificate.

That would be a nice theory of it wasn't for the fact that there's absolutely nothing in a Hawaiian birth certificate having to do with religion, parents, child, or otherwise.

Try again.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land is the only law that cannot be overturned by a simple vote by the voters. That takes a long slow process of a con con and there’s a good reason it’s slow.

A constitutional convention isn't required to amend the Constitution. Nor does amending the Constitution necessarily take a long time.

For example, the Twenty Sixth Amendment, setting the voting age to 18, was proposed on March 23, 1971, ratified July 1, 1971, and certified on July 7, 1971. Less than four months.

Most amendments didn't take but a few years to ratify. Of course there's always the exception to the rule. The Twenty Seventh Amendment was proposed in 1789, but wasn't ratified until 1992, a whopping 203 years later!

I thought McCain was born in Panama proper, not the Canal Zone.

According to McCain, and the "hospital" birth certificate he showed a Washington Post reporter in private (because he refused to release any copies of it), he was born in the small family hospital on the Coco Solo Naval Air Station.

The scanned images that have been floating around that people have been claiming to have been released by McCain, and which show him to have been born in the Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama, were in fact provided by a scammer named Donald Lamb, and were in fact used by Hollander in his eligibility lawsuit AGAINST McCain.

Here's a little blurb about Donald Lamb from The Panama News back in 2002:

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, eh?

Actually there was far more of a "mystery" about McCain.

McCain refused to provide any copies (scanned images or photographs) of his "hospital" birth certificate to the public. He only showed the certificate in private, to at least the Washington Post reporter. And there was no record of his birth in the Canal Zone Health Department records.

Yet this seems to have completely escaped the attention of those who have been making such a fuss about Obama's birth for over a year now.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs was not able to find any record of McCain's birth in the Canal Zone Health Department records, which are kept at the National Archives.

There is no record of McCain's birth in the bound birth registers of the Panama Canal Zone Health Department, which are available for public inspection at the National Archives in College Park, Md. Here is a sample page from the August 1936 birth register.

As they’ve pointed out to me and others, HI is forbidden by law from verifying the COLB as pictured on his site

When did the state of Connecticut ever verify George W. Bush's birth certificate? When did the state of Arkansas ever verify Bill Clinton's birth certificate? When did the state of Massachusetts ever verify George H.W. Bush's birth certificate? When did the state of Illinois ever verify Ronald Reagan's birth certificate?

And, due to the HI law discussed in the post, he could have a valid cert on file and that cert could indicate a foreign birth.

They didn't issue birth certificates of foreign birth in 1961. That law wasn't established until 1982. And Obama's Certification of Live Birth shows his birth was filed by the state registrar in 1961.

Also, a Certification of Live Birth would not be issued as a copy of a Certificate of Foreign Birth. It would be a Certification of Foreign Birth.

Once again: the COLB as pictured on his site means very little since it hasn’t been verified.

Verified by whom exactly?

It had been known since August of last year that the physical document was being kept at Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters.

Yet I'm not aware of anyone, save for Fact Check, who ever bothered to go there and ask to see it for themself. So clearly those who have been screaming about it weren't at all interested in verifying it. Why should they? Then they wouldn't have anything to scream about.

It would certainly be very bold of him to fake the COLB, but it’s not like he hasn’t lied before:

http://24ahead.com/s/obama-misleads

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a politician would ever lie to anyone!

The COLB pictured on his website has never been verified by the issuing agency or any other government entity.

Name any other President whose birth certificate was "verified by the issuing agency or any other government entity."

The "verification" is the state registrar's signature stamp certifying that the information contained in the document is an accurate reflection of the record they have on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.



You’re certainly free to take him at his word, just as long as you note what you’re doing.

Well let's see. I've not seen one shred of credible evidence that he was born anyplace other than Hawaii. Nor have I see one shred of credible evidence that the certificate shown is anything other than the genuine article. And last but not least, Hawaii is on record saying unambiguously that they have a birth certificate on file in the state of Hawaii for Obama.

The reason I’m pushing hard on this is because many people don’t note that they’re basing what they say on faith and not on facts.

And that is especially true of those who cooked up and promote this whole "controversy."

Necessary disclaimer: the above doesn't mean that Obama took advantage of that law. It just means that it's a possibility.

No, it does not mean it's a possibility.

Obama's Certification of Live Birth shows that his birth was filed by the state Registrar on August 8, 1961.

A registrar could not be filing a birth and issuing a birth certificate in 1961 based on a law which didn't exist until 1982.

1: The COLB posted on the internet has been repeatedly shown to be a forgery.

No, it hasn't. It has only been alleged to have been a forgery by one person who was exposed as a fraud who fabricated their "evidence," and another who routinely demonstrated that they had no real knowledge of digital graphics and imaging.

Both of whom have remained completely anonymous.

2: The 1982 statute is an update of a previously existing law.

No, it's not. Had it been an update of an existing law, that would have been reflected in the statute's history.

[L 1982, c 182, §1]

As opposed to older statutes, such as 338-13:

[L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

The earliest year in the history shows the year the statute was first enacted.

338-17.8 didn't exist until 1982.

The phrase "the law of nations" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, REFERRING TO DE VATTEL'S "The Law of Nations"!!!!!

Oh, really?

Really.

De Vattel's treatise, The Law of Nations was not codified into the Constitution by Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. Nor did the mention of "the law of nations" in that clause have anything to do with domestic issues, least of all citizenship.