11/30/08

Obama Certificate Update: Dates And 'the Facts'

follow up on: Obama Citizenship Mystery Update
***
The Obama clan was ordered to respond to the Supreme Court by Monday 12-1-08 in regard to the original Berg case. The Federal Election Commission on 11-19-08 'waived 'their right, but it's not clear whether that was independent or for all parties (see link above). Tomorrow should tell .

12-5-08 is the SCOTUS "conference" on the Donofrio case. Quote from article: "If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled." (see link above)

And 12-15-08 is the Electoral College. Berg has stated the intent to press the case there, and the Keyes CA case (here) may come into play as it is asking for a stay on the 55 CA votes.
****
fyi: This video, with a rather sinister looking BO, is a straightforward presentation of the facts in regard to Obama and the 'natural birth' eligibility issue. Speaker unknown:



Video and the comments below quoted in full from here; fyi:
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. A natural born citizen, would not be a citizen of any other nation than the United States. That is what "natural born" means. By nature, the child, would be only a US citizen, because both of his parents were US citizens, and NO OTHER NATION, can by law claim him to be under their jurisdiction, at the moment of his birth. That was not the case with Obama. He was, by law, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the moment he was born, and then, by law, he became a citizen of Kenya on Dec. 12, 1963."
****
Stay tuned.....

13 comments :

smrstrauss said...

You say that Hawaii allows registration of birth in Hawaii of persons born outside of Hawaii.

This is true, now. But it was not true in 1961, and it is not true now and NEVER was true that Hawaii allowed someone to register someone who was born outside of Hawaii and receive a document that said that she or he was born inside of Hawaii.

Why not? Well for the obvious reason that if they did, a Hawaii official birth record could be used to obtain citizenship for someone who was not eligible to have citizenship. Hawaii did not do this, and does not do this.

It turns out that the certification of live birth issued by Hawaii, which says on it three times that Obama was born in Hawaii, is the only official document issued by Hawaii relative to birth (except perhaps to native Hawaiians by race who are trying to prove that fact). A hospital birth record is not an official document. It is often not accepted by governments for issuing drivers licenses, and it is certainly not accepted by the State Department.

So Obama has shown his certification of live birth. It is an official document. It says (three times) that he was born in Hawaii. Hawaii never issues a certification of live birth to someone who was not born in Hawaii that says that they were born in Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii say that they have looked into the files and found evidence that the certification is accurate.

Moreover, the theory that Obama was born in Kenya is crazy. It requires that Obama's mother traveled in the ninth month of pregnancy, at a time when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa, and that IF she went to Kenya, there are no official records of her arriving in Kenya (due perhaps to the Kenyan government being part of the conspiracy) and no existing photographs of her in Kenya or of Obama with his grandparents. Crazy.

So (1) There is an official record, confirmed by officials who have no reason to lie that Obama was born in Hawaii. (2) There is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

Re: The Donofrio case that Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii because his father was not a US citizen. The Constitution does not say that it bars persons who have dual nationality from being president. It only says that the person who will be president must be over the age of 35 and a natural born citizen. Until this theory emerged, natural born referred to being born in the USA. This theory is therefore an extreme interpretation. It may have three votes on the Supreme Court. Its chances of getting four votes to bring the case to a hearing are about 100 to one against.

Ted said...

On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU

tom m. said...

(1)re: "...and the officials in Hawaii say that they have looked into the files and found evidence that the certification is accurate."

In a court of law that 'evidence' would be called "hearsay" regardless of whether the person is an "official" or not an official.

Question: Why has the only document released by Obama camp for 'public viewing' been reportedly verified as a forgery?

forgery; see: http://anothervoicerev184.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-online-certificate-petition_22.html

A candidate for the highest office in the land passing off a 'reportedly' forged COLB? Why? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

(2) "no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii"

Here is the problem. Nobody has seen any evidence either way. Both Hawaii and Kenya have sealed all records:

http://anothervoicerev184.blogspot.com/2008/10/hawaii-kenya-seal-obama-records-obama.html

Why?

The people (used to)have a right to have these matters cleared up and all doubt removed, and 'Obama' should be a 'stand-up' guy. If not then he should not be president-elect but president-reject.

I'm not holding my breath on that one though.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The people (used to)have a right to have these matters cleared up and all doubt removed, and 'Obama' should be a 'stand-up' guy. If not then he should not be president-elect but president-reject."

Have you ever heard of the US citizens having a chance to see the president's birth certificate or the certificate of a candidate before this election? I mean, did anyone demand to see the birth certificate of Reagan, FDR, JFK, the two Bushes, Eisenhower, Truman, Etc? Or the candidates: Did anyone demand to see Stevenson's birth certificate, Dukakis's birth certificate, Kerry's, Gore's, Dewey's, Wilkie's, Goldwater's, Al Smith's, Etc?

So, clearly there is no precedent for demanding a birth certificate.

But in this election both candidates did post their birth certificates, and in Obama's case the legal document issued by the State of Hawaii is the certification of live birth. This says on it three times that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials of Hawaii subsequently issued a statement that said that the document is accurate -- meaning that the place of birth listed on the document is accurate.

Now, as to the claim that both Hawaii and Kenya have "sealed the records." Hawaii has not sealed any records. The birth records of Hawaii are private documents, available only to certain family members. There is nothing unusual about that. The governor of Hawaii took no special action to "seal" records. That was reported to be the case by WND, but it is simply not accurate. (WND isn't very accurate.)

The same applies to Kenya. The only report that has ever claimed that Kenya has "sealed" Obama's records (IF there are any), is from Corsi and WND. No reliable news agency has confirmed it. No Kenyan newspaper has confirmed it.

This situation sounds like the nut who was convinced that the government had implanted a radio in his head to control his thoughts. So a friend took him to have an MRI, which naturally showed that there was no radio in his head.

But the nut was not convinced. He said “Ah! But can you prove that that is really an MRI of me?” So they called in the MRI operator, who certified that that MRI was the MRI of the nut. But the nut was still not convinced. He said: “He certifies that that MRI is an MRI of me. But how do we know that he is not working for the government?”

In your case you are saying that even though there is an official document from Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii -- who have no reason to lie -- have said that it is accurate, they are deliberately misleading us.

And, you say that the reason we cannot get any confirming evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, or that his mother visited Kenya in 1961, is because Kenya is part of the plot.

And, presumably, the lack of photographs of Obama’s mother with her in-laws in Kenya and of baby Obama with his grandparents, the fact that these do not exist is also part of the plot.

And the fact that it was very unlikely that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot (bad during pregnancies) does not matter. According to the myth, she traveled to Kenya -- although there is no evidence of her ever being in Kenya.

Nixon and Ford and Carter and Reagan and Bush1 and Clinton and Bush2 showed nothing in the way of birth records, and yet without question they became presidents. Obama has shown a valid legal document from the State of Hawaii, which shows that he was born in Hawaii.

It is the only legal birth document issued by the State of Hawaii. It has been accepted by the US State Department for granting Obama a passport. There is no evidence that he was born outside of Hawaii (and it is the responsibility of opponents to prove that he was born somewhere else, not he to provide additional evidence on top of the official records).

There is something crazy about the continued doubt about Obama’s birth in Hawaii. It’s more than the nut who thought he has a radio in his head. It reminds me of the folks who continue to believe that the US government has the bodies of aliens stored in Roswell, NM.

tom m. said...

You mean there are NO aliens in Roswell? (that's a joke)
***
re: "There is something crazy about the continued doubt about Obama’s birth in Hawaii."

(1) An argument as to 'precedent' is not relevant. The preponderance of the evidence or lack thereof raises enough doubt to make this a unique situation.

What is relevant is that what Obama has offered is a “Certificate of live Birth” which does not name the doctor or hospital who delivered him, only registers his birth. (and the document, again, is reportedly from many sources, itself a fraud i.e. not 'valid')

(2) To question is not necessarily an accusation. Sufficient doubt has been raised to justify questioning.

(3) There is definitely something crazy going on though, agreed, and most people (no telling how many now)feel that because it concerns the Constitution of the U.S. that it should be cleared up. It's that simple...and because of the weight of the issue the "because we say it is" proof that has been offered is not going to be sufficient, as evidenced by the numerous pending legal actions.

(4) All the secondary issues such as the mom traveling in the ninth month and photographs and yellow fever shots are also not relevant to the issue.

(5) The questions of doubt in regard to the Constitution are legitimate. This is not a run for class president of the High School.

That's what all the excitement is about. Looks like a full page ad is running in the Chicago Tribune today too. That should stir up a lot more excitement:

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf

There are some strong 'accusations' coming from this open-letter which is a direct challenge of Obama. How it is handled should be revealing.

This does not look like it's going away...

smrstrauss said...

Re: “The preponderance of the evidence” raises questions.

What preponderance? There is official documentary evidence from Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no evidence except a tape recording of the grandmother, and she probably did not understand the question, that he was born in Kenya. There are claims that the Kenyan government has sealed files related to Obama in Kenya, but these are not confirmed, and are from Corsi and WND.

Re: “What is relevant is that what Obama has offered is a “Certificate of live Birth” which does not name the doctor or hospital who delivered him, only registers his birth. (and the document, again, is reportedly from many sources, itself a fraud i.e. not 'valid')”

Actually, it is a Certification of Live Birth. It is an official document issued by the state of Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii were shown the document that Obama had posted and confirmed its authenticity. Then they went to their records and confirmed that there is a birth certificate in the records. The COLB is a certification that they have a birth certificate in their records, and the fact that they stated that the birth certificate authenticates the COLB shows that the COLB is accurate in its listing of the place of birth, Hawaii.

Re: "most people (no telling how many now) feel that because it concerns the Constitution of the U.S. that it should be cleared up."

How many please? As many as voted for Obama? In any case it doesn’t matter how many. Since it is a constitutional issue only the Supreme Court can decide whether this is an issue in any way. It is said that they will discuss the matter on Dec. 5. I will bet that they will not do anything.

Re: "All the secondary issues such as the mom traveling in the ninth month and photographs and yellow fever shots are also not relevant to the issue."

You are kidding. Much of this constitutional issue of Obama’s birth is over whether Obama was born in Kenya and it is not relevant that it was unlikely that his mother traveled to Kenya? The fact that it was unlikely that she traveled to Kenya and the fact that there is a document in the Hawaii files that says he was born in Hawaii confirm each other.

Re: "The questions of doubt in regard to the Constitution are legitimate." This is not a run for class president of the High School.

Sure. IF there hadn’t been a document from Hawaii showing that he was born in Hawaii and evidence that he was born in Kenya, then maybe legitimate. But since there is a legal document from Hawaii and no evidence he was born in Kenya, not legitimate—crazy and dumb.

Don’t you ever wonder that maybe Corsi and WND are playing their believers for fools? I mean to go to Kenya and claim that all the relevant files are sealed is fine. BUT it is only a claim. In order to prove that the files are sealed would merely involve getting someone independent, such as a news agency, to ask to see the same files you asked for, and to report that they have been sealed.

Re: "This does not look like it's going away..."

Well, as I say, there are still folks who believe that the US government has stored the bodies of aliens in Rosewell, NM. If, after the Supreme Court meets on Dec. 5 we do not hear anything (give it a few days, since Dec 5 is a Friday), then there is no legal issue. It does go away.

Here’s a new thought:

In most cases, if you have a child overseas, you are proud of that fact. Why would Obama’s parents be any different?

If he was born in Kenya, wouldn’t it be likely that the parents would say that he was born in Kenya? And, if so, why would they even need to get a Hawaiian birth certificate, since they already had one from Kenya. And, if they did get a Hawaiian birth certificate, why try to get one that said that he was born in Hawaii? (You can get a Hawaii COLB that says “born in Kenya.”) Why risk making that lie?

If you tried to get a Hawaiian birth certificate that said your child was born in Hawaii, and the officials found out that you had just arrived on a plane with him, wouldn’t you think that the officials would be irritated by that, and maybe even charge you with making a false statement? And if you were Obama’s father, who was only a visitor to the US on a student visa, would a charge of making a false statement open the possibility of you losing your visa and hence your education?

Yet we know that the COLB says “born in Hawaii,” and we know that there was a birth certificate in Hawaii files within ten days after his birth because of the newspaper notices that were generated from the records bureau.

The plot is too complicated and the risk of lying is too high. Too high for the parents then. Too high for the officials in Hawaii now. The Hawaii document says he was born in Hawaii. The officials of the state of Hawaii say that it is accurate. They would not lie. The parents would not lie in saying that he was born in Hawaii. It is difficult to travel in the ninth month of pregnancy, particularly when you have to get a Yellow Fever shot. There is no confirming evidence from Kenya. Obama was born in Hawaii.

tom m. said...

smrstrauss,

Whether or not officials might be induced to lie is one issue which we will not enter into here, but this case cannot rest entirely on the veracity of the 'official statement' from Hawaii. (Or WND, of course)

Your argument is ultimately based solely on that "official statement", and that it is to be trusted unquestionably. Leaving that alone for the moment, there are a number of other considerations that further complicate the matter.

These issues were brought out in the "We The People Foundation" full page ad in yesterday's Chicago Tribune, scheduled to be run tomorrow 12-3-08 also.

***
Here are just some of the other issues raised in the Chicago Tribune ad, quoted verbatim:

"Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding the Office of President by the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S.Constitution. For instance:

You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughly
discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a form
that lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed
Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of
attending physician and age of mother.

• Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born in Hawaii.

• Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.

• Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth
in Kenya.

• U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age.

• In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen."

"You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence of your eligibility when challenged to do so in a number of recent lawsuits. Instead, you have been successful in having judges declare that they are powerless to order you to prove your eligibility to assume the Office of President."

"Incredibly, the judge in Hawaii actually said it would be an invasion of your privacy for him to order access to your original birth certificate in order to prove your eligibility to hold the Office of President."

"Before you can legitimately exercise any of the powers of the President you must meet all the criteria for eligibility established by the Constitution."

"You are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence."

"Should you assume the office as anyone but a bona fide natural born
citizen of the United States who has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national crisis that would undermine the domestic peace and stability of the Nation."

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf
----------------------
You are right on the 'risk' factor though. At this point, for Obama to be proven fraudulent would be enormous.

Last point, no dis-connect of logic is needed to see where the questions and doubt arise.

The whole country is watching now....

ciao

smrstrauss said...

Re: “You are right on the 'risk' factor though. At this point, for Obama to be proven fraudulent would be enormous.”

You completely misunderstand me on the subject of risk. I believe it is a risk when people lie. If officials lie, they take on a risk, and the officials in Hawaii understood that they ran a very high risk in this case, a risk with little in the way of reward to outweigh it, so they did not lie.

As for the risk of Obama being proved fraudulent, I do not believe that there is much risk. BUT if there is any risk to the economy or to the nation and Obama is proved to be from Kenya, then he should be proved to be from Kenya. There is some kind of old Latin quote along the lines of “let justice be done even if the heavens fall,” and I believe that is what we should do in this case.

But, as I say, not much real risk because he wasn’t born in Kenya.

Getting back to the born in Kenya stupidity, much of what you quoted from the advertisement revolves around that stupidity. For example, it says that if Obama was born in Kenya he would not be a US citizen, which we all know. So, big deal, he was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii.

Then it says his grandmother was quoted on tape. Well, hell (oops heck), I listened to that, and it was by no means clear that she understood the question, and besides, since when are grandmothers on audio tape evidence? Old people, sadly, sometimes get confused. To believe her, you would want to bring her to the USA and the rest of the family, put them all under oath, and then ask “where was Obama born?” And ask substantiating questions too – like “how many days did Obama’s parents spend in Kenya before the birth?”

Until then, we simply have to believe that the grandmother was confused. She certainly cannot outweigh the official documents in Hawaii and the overwhelming implausibility of Obama’s mother traveling in the ninth month of pregnancy (not to mention that if she did, she never mentioned it to anyone who can recall her mentioning for the rest of her life. And, you know, when you give birth in Kenya, it makes for an interesting discussion.).

Re: “Whether or not officials might be induced to lie is one issue which we will not enter into here.” Of course they can lie, as can Corsi and Berg, and WND. Which is more likely to lie? Officials who could lose their jobs and be prosecuted if found out, or zealots whose lies will not be noticed and who have the right to free speech even if it is a lie?

Re: “this case cannot rest entirely on the veracity of the 'official statement' from Hawaii. (Or WND, of course)”

To be sure if the issue ever gets before a court, the court will ask for all the relevant documents. It will look at the COLB and it MAY ask for the underlying documents. If so, I think that is just great. Also, I think that the underlying documents will prove what Obama says.

A court may even ask that the files in Kenya be searched and the Kenyan relatives be brought to the USA where they can be questioned—or send officers of the court to Kenya to question them under oath. And I think that is just great too.

BUT we are discussing the matter before that happens, IF it happens. On the basis of what we know now, the preponderance of the evidence is way way way against the “born in Kenya theory.”

What happens if the SC doesn’t take the case and there is no court hearings on the born in Kenya issue?

Well, obviously, we have to rely on the evidence that we have right now, which is that there is nothing from the born in Kenya side except the grandmother tape. On the other side there are the officials and the document and the shear implausibility of the mother going to Kenya in the ninth month.

Want to know why McCain and the Republican party are not joining in the suits against Obama? Want to know why they aren’t demanding that Obama post more birth documents on line? Maybe because they think the born in Kenya theory is crazy.

tom m. said...

Fiat justitia, ruat coelum

"Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall asunder"


I did understand what you meant as to the risk. I was actually trying to (be witty)infer that sometimes a person can get in so deep into a particular situation, and that the consequences of being found out would be so severe, that maintaining the 'coverup' could be actually worth taking the risk of doing whatever might have to be done to do so. Including inducing others to collude, perhaps.

In this context, just for the record, to my knowledge the only 'official' statement issued from Hawaii is this one:

(printed in numerous sources)

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

It is noteworthy that the statement does not mention anything about Obama actually being born in Hawaii. Only of a 'birth certificate'.

I believe that this is why the WTP group are making this claim:

• Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born in Hawaii.

On the same point, the 'document' released by Obama, again, is alleged by 'experts' to be a forgery. If true, that is itself unexplainable. At any rate, with these allegations it cannot be accepted without question.

Aside from that, there are still a number of other issues that have been raised:

• In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen." (WTP)

Documented attendance at Indonesian schools which only allowed Indonesian citizens.(reportedly)

Obama and the 1981 Pakistan travel when U.S. passports were not allowed.(reportedly)

The British citizenship question.

Taking all these things into consideration, I do not see any craziness in the people of America saying "prove it" to Obama.

re: "To be sure if the issue ever gets before a court, the court will ask for all the relevant documents. It will look at the COLB and it MAY ask for the underlying documents. If so, I think that is just great."

Agreed. Time will tell.

smrstrauss said...

First, on your last point: “Agreed. Time will tell.”

This is the most important point and I am glad we agree. I will go along with the decision of the Supreme Court, or if it fails to act, accept the status quo – naturally . I will go along with the decision of any other court if it asks to see further documents, and if it rules that Obama was born outside the country I will go along with the consequences of that too. I assume that you will do the same. If no court acts or if the SC finds there is nothing to the Donofrio case or the Berg case, then the issue is over. No more “aliens hidden in Rosewell NM” myths.

Turning to substance:

Re: "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

Yes, as you or others have pointed out, this is a very carefully crafted statement. It has to be because the law says that she cannot reveal the contents of the file. So it does not say “there is a Hawaii document in the file” and it does not say “there is a Kenya document in the file.” It does say that they have seen the original birth certificate.

It is also in response to questions about Obama’s place of birth. That is the reason for the word “Therefore.”

The statement issued “therefore” answers the questions about the place of birth by saying that she and the registrar had seen the original birth certificate. IF she had NOT seen anything in the files and issued this statement, she and the registrar would be lying, of course.

IF they had seen a Kenyan document and just said that they saw an original birth certificate, they would not be clearing up the questions about Obama’s place of birth and, since the impression they are giving is that they are clearing up the questions about the place of birth, they would be deliberately misleading.

So, what would be their motive to deliberately mislead? Remember they were appointed by a Republican governor. Remember, if a court ultimately demands to see the document in the file, and it turns out that the document says “born in Kenya” (or born in New Jersey for that matter), they would be in trouble. Why should they run that risk?

To be sure, the strict wording of the law probably holds that they should not have said ANYTHING. Perhaps they should be prosecuted for violating the law. (Which is why the statement was so carefully crafted, and since they are not being prosecuted, probably successfully crafted). But that is not the issue. The issue is only whether they looked into the file and told the truth or lied or mislead. Since it was borderline illegal to reveal anything about the file, doing so while lying or misleading compounds the illegality. They have no motive to do that. Too risky.

Therefore in saying that they saw an original birth certificate they were giving the impression that Obama was born in Hawaii, which would be illegal if it were not true.

Re: •” Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born in Hawaii.”

That is as we discussed. The law says that they cannot reveal the contents of the file. So it is deliberately misleading to say in the ad “will not confirm” because who expected to have them confirm? And, essentially they did confirm by NOT saying “We looked at the file, and Whow—what a problem!!!”

However, let us look at the remote possibility that there is a document in the file that says “born in Kenya.” Why would the parents of Obama want to file a Kenyan birth certificate in Hawaii? Why would they lie and say that the child was born in Hawaii, if he was born in Kenya?

There is a lot of talk on right wing blogs about Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. that “allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.”

But it turns out that this expectation that you can go to Kenya and come back to Hawaii and get a Hawaii birth document that says “born in Hawaii” IS ALL WRONG. You can get a Hawaii birth document for a child born outside of Hawaii, but the line on the COLB that says “location of birth” has to be filled out accurately.

Thus if you go to Kenya, come back, go to the records office, fill in a form that asks “location of birth” and you fill in “Kenya,” then you get a Hawaii birth document that says “location of birth: Kenya.”

But we know that Obama’s COLB says that he was born in Honolulu. So there cannot be an original birth document in the Hawaii files that says “born in Kenya.” Of course the parents could have lied in filling out the form (if it came from a hospital in Hawaii, they didn’t have to fill out the form, obviously, but we are talking about Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8).

Could the parents have lied? Sure—but why would they? What would have been their motive? Surely it would not be the expectation that their child could be president one day! Moreover, how likely is a lie that says “he was born in Hawaii” when a few days before he was on a plane or a boat and anyone could see that he was coming back to Hawaii from someplace else. To lie and say “he was born in Hawaii” when witnesses could see that he was being transported to Hawaii and might be young enough to be born someplace else, is a risky thing to do.

Re: “On the same point, the 'document' released by Obama, again, is alleged by 'experts' to be a forgery. If true, that is itself unexplainable. At any rate, with these allegations it cannot be accepted without question.”

Okay. So the experts in Hawaii looked into the file and found a birth document and made a statement about it. Would they do that if they thought that the document that was published was forged? In fact, the reporters at Polifact and Factcheck copied the physical document they were given and sent the images to the authorities in Hawaii, and the response was that as far as the authorities could see (since they could only see the image and not the physical document itself) it was authentic. Moreover, they said something about having sent a COLB to Obama at about the time stated.

So we either come back to the authorities in Hawaii lying, or the document is not forged.

Anyway, who are these “experts?” Are they from Hawaii? Have they ever looked at Hawaiian birth documents before? How can they say “forged” when they haven’t seen the physical document? Do you believe the “experts” of WND or do you believe this guy (see below)?

A posting from Andrew Walden, publisher of the Hawaii Free Press, a right-wing blog based in Hawaii.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx

Barack Obama: Born in Hawai`i
by Andrew Walden

It is time to focus on REAL issues, not imaginary ones.

A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense, which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama's upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama's numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.

Obama's birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama's birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement.

End Quote

Re: “In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen." (WTP)”

Obama and other constitutional lawyers will have a real laugh over this one because the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a child cannot lose his US citizenship (IF he was born in the USA, of course) simply because of the actions of his parents when he is a child. HE has to take the action himself and only when he is an adult.


You will see the proof of this at:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

In particular look at the Elg case:

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called "Bancroft Treaties" enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.

The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg's parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.

End quote

Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.

Re: “Documented attendance at Indonesian schools which only allowed Indonesian citizens.(reportedly)”

There have been cases like this too. Turns out that if you have dual nationality, and the foreign country insists that you give up your US citizenship when you are a child, and you do, and your parents do too, and the foreign country THINKS that you have given up your US citizenship, you are still a US citizen.

Why? Because US law applies, of course, and it should. So the base line is no matter what his parents did; no matter what Indonesia thinks, he could only give up his citizenship as an adult, and he did not do that.

Re: “Obama and the 1981 Pakistan travel when U.S. passports were not allowed.(reportedly)”

This is another laugh because even if he used a foreign passport, that’s not grounds for losing your US citizenship.

The US has no policy that would strip someone of US citizenship due to she or he traveling on a foreign passport. This is simply not mentioned in the State Department’s advice on the matter. See:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

In addition to travel on a foreign passport NOT being a reason that one can lose US citizenship, the State Department stress that it is difficult to lose citizenship by accident. This is because its standard for loss of citizenship requires someone to take an active role in relinquishing citizenship. In its words, “with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” The State Department guidelines read:

“…the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”


Re: “The British citizenship question.”

This is the Donofrio case and it is the only one with a chance, I think. But I think it is a remote chance.

Still, as I said at the beginning, if the SC hears the case and finds against Obama, I will accept that.

Why is it a remote possibility? Because this is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii ,the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth.

Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.

Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.

This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA.

The whole legal theory revolves around the use of the word “jurisdiction.” Donofrio argues that it means “allegiance” and that since Obama had an allegiance to Britain at the time of his birth, he was not subject to US jurisdiction and hence not a Natural Born citizen.

However there are other meanings of jurisdiction, and it may be tough to prove it means “allegiance.” One way it has been used in citizenship law, I understand, is that it simply means that children born in the USA in Foreign Embassies or Consulates or places that can be set up as foreign embassies or consulates legally in hospitals are NOT under US jurisdiction, and hence there is an exception to the usual rule that anyone born in the USA is a US citizen.

Obviously, this does not apply to Obama. Only the meaning “allegiance” would apply, and even that is not certain. Can we say in these days that when born a child and infant, someone who still cannot say “Dada,” owes “allegiance” to one country or another? If so, why isn’t it to the country of his mother? Or, why isn’t it simply that she or he has dual allegiance, which is the same as dual nationality, and the Constitution says nothing about dual nationality? Or, finally, what is wrong with the common way we have used “natural born” in the past, meaning born in the USA?

So, as I say, the Donofrio case is unlikely to get a hearing, much less win. But wait and see. As I said, if the SC acts, I will honor it whichever way it acts. I also will honor the fact that if it does not act, that is the law too.

tom m. said...

smrstrauss,

re: "But wait and see. As I said, if the SC acts, I will honor it whichever way it acts. I also will honor the fact that if it does not act, that is the law too."

Agreed. Best case scenario, the Supreme Court takes the case, or cases, and passes down a decision either way.

Despite point by point debunking, the bottom line is that all in all there are (without rehashing)too many loose ends and it's not likely people will ever be satisfied without some finality. It is the Constitution of the U.S. in question. This is the reason it has come this far.

If the case is refused, well then, no answer is a 'no' answer, and the message will be clear.

But, taking the position of a neutral observer for the moment, it does not appear that a "no answer" would be the end of it, as the thing seems to be still gaining momentum.

Anyway, let's see what happens next.

smrstrauss said...

As you probably know by now, the Supreme Court threw out the Donofrio Case today (Dec. 8, 2008), and reportedly there were no justices recording dissents to the action to throw out the case.

Quotes

Barack Obama
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Obama Nationality Case

Washington Post, Dec. 8

By Robert Barnes

The Supreme Court this morning unceremoniously declined to hear an emergency appeal from a man who claimed President-elect Barack Obama is not qualified for the presidency because he is not a "natural-born" citizen.

The court without comment declined to hear "Donofrio v. Wells," a suit that had attempted to keep Obama off the New Jersey ballot. Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick had claimed Obama had dual nationality at birth, because of his Kansas-born mother and his Kenyan-born father, who was a British subject at the time.

Just to be nonpartisan about it, Donofrio also contended that Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero also were not natural-born citizens and should have been kept off the ballot.

The case had little chance at the high court, but became the subject of a tremendous amount of speculation and debate on ideological political blogs.

Right-wing blogs were outraged when Justice David H. Souter denied Donofrio's petition for an injunction, and left-wing blogs smelled trouble when Justice Clarence Thomas referred the matter to the full court for consideration.

In fact, both were routine procedures, as the court's action today shows. There were no recorded dissents to the decision dismissing the case.

end quotes

Of course, you and others are welcome to believe the theory that Obama cannot be president because his father was a British subject at the time of birth, but a belief by a relatively small number of Americans has little impact, and it certainly does not have the force of law.

Without the Donofrio case, the opponents of Obama now have to prove that he was either born outside of the USA or that he lost his US citizenship. Both are very difficult to prove.

tom m. said...

re: opponents of Obama

Here an important distinction is to be made. This is not at all about opposing Obama, per se, but for the vast majority of Americans who are concerned it is about nothing more than protecting the Constitution as the rule of law. They do not believe that the 'mystery man' is so wonderful that it should be overlooked even for him.

As for the "relatively small number of Americans", those few who have managed to become aware of the questions surrounding the issue despite the complete msm blanketing of the story, it is true now as always that 'numbers' are no test of truth.

As to proving whether or not there is truth to the allegations, that is in fact proving to be very difficult, as you say. But, the reason for that is only because the issues have not been satifactorily addressed, but evaded. Up to this point there is not a court in the land that will touch this case..not even the Supreme. The msm mocks and the'homeland' president-elect remains mute. Something's wrong.

If 'truth' were the issue, then this would have been dealt with openly and all misunderstandings corrected a long time ago and there would be nothing to talk about.

As it is, more cases are on the horizon, and others are setting their sights on the Electoral College.

Will these attempts fare any better? Can't say at this point, but up to now the Obama-express is bigger even than the Supreme Court.

Went into Borders bookstore the other day and suddenly realized just how much bigger this thing is. Obama books were everywhere, probably 15-20 of them, his face on the cover of 8-10 magazines, and even a new 'Michelle' book placed on display right by the door, full color picture that couldn't be avoided. They even had an illustrated Obama picture-book for children showing little Obama and how he grew up. Introducing the next generation to their 'great leader' was the impression received.

Somethings not right.

The conflict looks like it will run it's course though, as it should. That's a good thing in a free country.