It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Rise of the Birther Movement and It's Aims.

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You prove my point that there is absolutely nothing that we or Obama could post that you would accept as valid.

Hence it is pointless to even debate the non issue.




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
You prove my point that there is absolutely nothing that we or Obama could post that you would accept as valid..

How so?

All Obama has to do is have the document that is in Hawaii RELEASED.
That's it. It's very simple and it costs nothing.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Thats true, however they did personally verify the short form as authentic causing many birthers to partly implicate them as somehow bias or in the conspiracy. The short form birth certificate is the legal certification of birth and last year the state of Hawaii verified Obamas short form birth certificate as sufficient proof of birth.


Here is the Statement from Fukina:


"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"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.


While I realize taht MANY PEOPLE want to read this as saying that the State of Hawaii has verified that what was posted on the internet has the SAME info as what is held on record by the State of Hawaii, this statement does not actually say that.

Just as the poster in this thread who has the adopted child from out of country & Georgia holds the original BC. We have not been told in this statement that Barack Obama was undeniably born in Hawaii.

You can choose to believe it says something it doesn't, but that doesn't change the statement's actual message



Then you may find this interesting:


Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.


hawaii.gov...

Whether you choose to accept it as sufficient proof or not, the certification of live birth otherwise known as the "short form" birth certificate has become accepted by the state Hawaii as sufficient proof of birth. The fact that Fukina and other officials at the Hawaiian health department verified the short form personally solidifies this fact. You may have your own suspicions about Obama not meeting the demands of the birthers, you may not be satisfied, but under law he has proven sufficiently his eligibility, and really isnt obligated to show anything further.


This is also a very recent change in the Hawaiian Homelands Commission's Rules of evidence. Just as the 1 part of the circumstances of Birth was applicable only after 1982, this acceptable proof is a recent policy change.

TODAY the State of Hawaii only issues the "Short Form" for a Birth Ceritificate, that was NOT the case in 1961 when Barack Obama was born.

My Son's father is Hawaiian, which makes my son eligible for land under the Hawaiian Home Lands Program. We have already been completely through the process. In our personal experience, IF a Long Form was available, that is what they preferred.

No, you can no longer have a replacement BC issued as a Long Form, but MOST people have at least 1 copy of their original BC somewhere within the family.

As found on your link, and I can personally verify that all of these had to be produced, DHHL not only requires the applicant's BC but also certified copies of:


Your natural father;
Your natural mother;
Your natural father's parents;
Your natural mother's parents; and
Your natural great-grandparents if applicable (submit these if your grandparents were born after the 1920s)


Fortunately for us, the Great-grandparents documentation was not necessary.

All in all, the point is, the DHHL's requirements were a recent change.


Any chances by the least to question his birth right for the presidency was left to the "presidential confirmation" in December of 2008, however congress along with the electoral college accepted him as eligible. The constitution leaves all issues of eligibility and birth right to congress by the way.


And that is the point. There were Hundreds of thousands of phone calls and letters sent to our elected representatives to request, during the confirmation process, the presentation of Barack Obama's long form BC. They were ignored.

The people elected by We The People chose to disregard We The People and this is unacceptable to many Americans.


The only questions being created are those from the rightwing fringe who typically are known for holding multiple conspracies about Obama and other past leading liberal figures. These "questions" fortunatley do not tally up sufficient evidence to any basis in the theory of Obamas birth off US soil, evidence under court of law.

Not everybody will be satisfied with what this man does, not everybody will be satisfied with this man being voted in. Fortunatley in these United states the president doesnt have to satisfy every single individual in the nation.


You can resort to belittling and name calling if that is what suits you. But it doesn't change the fact that there is a significant and growing proportion of the US Populace that has questions.

The Presidnet may not have to satisfy each and every one of us, but he damned sure ought to be expected to satisfy conclusively the requirements set forth in the US Constitution.


Obama snr was never a permanent resident of Hawaii, he was an exchanged student who left back to Kenya straight after Obama jnrs birth. For the ammendment it needed both parents to declare permanent residency. You are somehow trying to say Obama could still have attained a birth certificate of Hawaii, even after 1982 when he was already an adult when this statute came out. This ammendment also only applied to children, Obama was into his 20's by the 80s.


I was not "trying to say" anything anything regarding Barack Obama Senior. I was simply posting the info, in total, from the link I provided.

Do not use underhanded methods to twist my message, it only makes your rebuttal weaker in the end.


Yes, only this granted parents the rights over their children from 1982 onwards, when Obama was already an adult. It simply didnt apply to him "had he hypothetically been born off soil". He would not have attained an Hawaiian short form birth certificate given that case. He did however present a short form hawaiian birth certificate, verified by the state. It only confirms his birthright.


Again, you are only referring to the change from 1982. What about the THREE OTHER possible scenarios for a birth record, Midwife or Doctor, Delayed BC, or No BC paperwork filing prior to 1st Birthday of the child?

All but having an attending Physician leave room for a parent to manipulate the system to guarantee that their child is granted US Citizen status, but you choose to ignore those scenarios and only focus on the 1 that is only applicable AFTER 1982.



Questions will not get your case through court, neither will hypothetical scenarios, neither will your personal dissatisfaction. You need solid proof. Obama has proven sufficiently under Hawaiian law his birth right for the presidency. Its in his right under law not to have to prove anything further. You may not find that acceptable, however you dont dictate the laws of the land.


As I have no case filed with the courts, the first part of your statement is moot. As to whether or not Obama has provided sufficient proof, that is nothing more than your opinion and I do not share it.


Again hypothetical, speculation. It just doesnt hold up as evidence he was born off US soil.


Again, I wasn't providing "evidence" as that is not within the scope of this thread in the first place. Hypothetical, I agree. Because we will never know the full extent of the repercussions UNLESS it is ultimately proven, by someone, somewhere, somehow, that Barack Obama is in fact, not eligible under the US Constitution to hold the office of President


Redhatty, the rest of the nation and the world doesnt give a cats hair what the birthers "just want to see". Apart from the fact you will inevitably continue to cry foul so long as this mans president, Obama has under law proven sufficiently his birth right for the presidency. He is not obligated to show anything any further. The campaigns over and its time birthers to get over the fact he proved sufficiently by law his eligibility and was voted in president.


Again, your opinion, which I don't share.

[edit on 7/24/09 by redhatty]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Just as the poster in this thread who has the adopted child from out of country & Georgia holds the original BC.

that'd be me.

Our daughter was born in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. She's adopted. Her BC now is in Atlanta, Georgia. What's more .... her birth parents are now listed as my husband and I. YES .. this is now her 'original birth certificate'.

If anyone were to ask for a copy of her original BC, it would come from Atlanta Georgia but it would read that she was born in Santa Cruz Bolivia and that my husband and I are listed as birth parents. (and I definately didn't give birth to her)

Hows' that for a document messing with history??



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Animal
there is no PROOF Obama is not a legitimate citizen.

there is no PROOF Obama IS a legitimate citizen.


Sigh...So sad we have to continue to do this dance.

BC Img 1
BC Img 2
BC Img 3
BC Img 4
BC Img 5
BC Img 6
BC Img 7
BCImg 8

There it is mate. Go ahead dismiss it as a forgery or what ever it is you birthers do now. I know it still will not be 'proof' because if you were all to have seen Obama fall out of Gods back-side on the island of Oahu you would still find good reason to question the place of his birth.

Then there is also the birth announcement in the paper.

Then when you think about it I am willing to bet the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon and every other shadowy and dangerous element of our government made sure that they were not giving our nations most closely guarded secrets to an illegal immigrant.



I said:

It is clearly playing the RACE card against Obama. 'Look he is not one of us he is from the slums of Africa'.


You replied:


I'm not seeing it.


To which I say: of course not, it is in your interest to ignore it.

Your antics and the antics of the birthers are pitiable. you got played like a Tonka Dump Truck in a 1982 sandbox. You just don't want to see it because your ideals forbid it.

The Birthers movement has nothing but a grip of right-wing bloggers, right wing media icons, and right wing politicians who encourage your actions to benefit THEIR desperate struggle to regain power over the government of the USA.

Show us some REAL evidence that the BC is a forgery, the Obama was born in another country, anything to truly dispute his legitimacy. PLEASE!

Until then you are simply a member of a fringe, cult-like cohort of right wing extremist puppets unwittingly doing the bidding of their masters (insert Darth Vader breathing here).



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I am not a betting dog but if I were I would put 100 to 1 odds that you blithers would find some excuse to reject it...

...and I would make out like a bandit.

In the American legal system the onus of proof is not on the accused but rather the accuser and to date the only thing you guys have proved is nothing...

....unless you count proving yourselves to be gullible at best and just out and out sore losers willing to spread lies and disinformation in your quest to delegitimize his presidency at worst.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by grover]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Our daughter was born in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. She's adopted. Her BC now is in Atlanta, Georgia. What's more .... her birth parents are now listed as my husband and I. YES .. this is now her 'original birth certificate'.


Could you please scan this BC and post it for us to see? Thanks.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Sigh...So sad we have to continue to do this dance.

Sigh .. some guy is holding up a piece of paper that is alleged to be Obama's?? We have no idea what is in those pictures.

Obama has to release his official BC ..

reply to post by Animal
 


HELL NO! I'm not putting my childs birth certificate on the world wide web. What are you .. nuts?? I'm not posting her picture either. That would be absolutely INSANE! :shk:

I spoke the truth. Either take my word for it or don't. I don't care.


Originally posted by Animal
Then there is also the birth announcement in the paper.

Oh for the love of God ....


Information was already posted showing that was a FAKE ADDRESS.
It can not be used as evidence of American birth since the Obamas
NEVER LIVED THERE. Go back over the thread and read it.
(jeeeeze .. talk about antics!
)



[edit on 7/24/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sigh .. some guy is holding up a piece of paper that is alleged to be Obama's?? We have no idea what is in those pictures.

Obama has to release his official BC ..



Funny, nice cop-out.
Try looking at all the images. It is very clear what it is showing.



reply to post by Animal
 


HELL NO! I'm not putting my childs birth certificate on the world wide web. What are you .. nuts?? I'm not posting her picture either. That would be absolutely INSANE! :shk:

I spoke the truth. Either take my word for it or don't. I don't care.


Actually I dont. You could so very easily scan the image and cover up any sensitive information and then post it, right?

I would love to see the errors you reported to be there and until I do, well call me a 'birther' but I dont believe your telling the truth.




[edit on 24-7-2009 by Animal]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The most frustrating part of all of this, imho, is that the BC is really a redundancy to proving the Barack Obama is not eligible for the office of President.

Obama has openly admitted multiple times that his father was a citizen of Kenya, not a US citizen.



This fact ALONE makes Barack Obama NOT a "Natural-Born Citizen" which is the main constitutional requirement for Presidential eligibility.

Obama has admitted his father was a British Subject when Obama was born. Obama's father never at any time was a U.S. citizen. In fact his father was not even an immigrant to the USA nor was he ever even a permanent resident of the USA. Thus since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen (NBC)" of the U.S. under our Constitution's framer's intent and Constitutional standards. And thus he cannot LEGALLY serve as our President under our Constitution.

The US Constitution describes 5 types of citizens

So call us "Birthers" and we'll call you "Illegitimizers" and the name calling will continue, so that the real onus of the controversy can continue to be side-stepped.

That onus being, we have, as President, a man who is not Constitutionally Eligible to hold that office.

And yet, there are still so many people who support his being there, regardless of the information presented to prove the validity of the "Birthers" eligibility argument.

Maybe I am "not normal" in my way of reacting to some situations, but I can tell you this much...

IF I was on the "Illegitimizers" side of the fence and truly believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii & eligible to hold his current position as President. I would be one of the loudest voices telling him to produce the stupid birth certificate & SHUT THE DOUBTERS UP.

But the only reaction I see from the "Illegitimizers" is "Leave it alone, you've had enough proof" or the ever popular "Someone HAD to have checked all this before the election, so leave it alone"

Again, I remind you all of Roger Calero the man born in Nicaragua who ran for president in 41 states, who ALSO made it past the Federal Elections Committee's review of his eligibility (but not past 9 States boards)

Who was checking HIS documents? The same people who were checking Obama's, I can promise you that.

If a man born a Nicaraguan National can get on the Presidential ballot in 41 states.... Well, need I say more?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


There is this:


In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote,


The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .

The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:

First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,

Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,

Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,

Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.

If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]

The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [2][italics in original]

The language "a natural-born citizen" in the constitution referred to by Justice Curtis is Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which reads, "No person except a natural born Citizen, [...] shall be eligible for the Office of President; [...] ."


Edit to add: link

So ya, possibly your link is correct in terms of the founding fathers but today it is different. CONSTITUTIONALLY he is eligible based on the SCOTUS ruling. I am still digging to verify the text on the scribd link you provided.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Animal]

Edit again to add: int he scribd link you provided it is interesting that in the information link for that piece of text all of the following information sections are blank:

Author
Editor
Publisher
Publish Date
Dewey Decimal
Series
Edition / Volume / Issue
Source URL
Location
Notes

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Animal]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Let's face it people if Obama were a white guy this question would not be consuming the lives of tea baggers and birthers.

What is so pathetic about these people is that they are so consumed with a self perpetuated lie. Blind hatred or breathtaking stupidity?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 





I doubt that your member name has any true reflection on who you really are because if it did you would have put the clues together as to the truth of this matter.

Well, that is your problem, not mine. There are enough friends of mine on ATS that know that I am exactly what my Avatar says I am. On the other hand, it is rather strange that you have been on ATS for over 1 1/2 years, and you have created exactly THREE threads, although only one shows on your profile.
Who is the one lacking any original thought, or ability to "put clues together"?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Here is the Statement from Fukina:


In that statement Fukina was refering to the long form birth certificate which she clearly would not be released without Obamas authorization. She did however personally verify the short form which is a certification of birth on Hawaii soil and sufficient enough as evidence of Obamas birth. You and Flyers continue to get it mixed up


To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...


Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid.

www.starbulletin.com...


While I realize taht MANY PEOPLE want to read this as saying that the State of Hawaii has verified that what was posted on the internet has the SAME info as what is held on record by the State of Hawaii, this statement does not actually say that.


Then you tell me what is she saying?

Upon presenting the short form birth certificate show already:

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008


Go to the links. Fukina was presented the current short form birth certificate already called on as a fake by the birthers, she personally verified it. We are refering to the short form, not her statement on the long form.


We have not been told in this statement that Barack Obama was undeniably born in Hawaii.


Well you are yet to deny he was born on US soil now, aint ya? True, we will never know 100% whether Obama born in Hawaii, as we can say for past presidents, fortunatly this is why we laws in place. The laws set bounds on what is acceptable enough for eligibility, and Obama has sufficiently satisfied those laws. Apart from the fact the short form is sufficient proof of eligibility, you are yet to correctly reference the laws to prove whats on that short form can be different. As statute 338 only applies to children following 1982 his short form must then reflect directly what is on the long form.

I dont think the birthers complaining they are not personally satisfied will change anything in the law. If you are serious about this conspiracy solid evidence of his birth off US soil will get you that long form.


This is also a very recent change in the Hawaiian Homelands Commission's Rules of evidence.


I dont care if its recent buddy, its the law. His sufficiently satisfied the laws of the land. His not obligated to prove anything further. The only way your going to get that long form is if you present solid evidence. Right now the only thing you folks have done so far is to create more questions. That will not get you that long form.


Just as the 1 part of the circumstances of Birth was applicable only after 1982, this acceptable proof is a recent policy change.


Exactly. Statute 338 was created in 1982 for children of Hawaiian parents. As Obama was 21 years of age by the time that law was installed it didnt apply to him, neither did the ammendment you referenced. In addition both parents had to be Hawaiian residents for Obamas short form to then display different information to the long form.


TODAY the State of Hawaii only issues the "Short Form" for a Birth Ceritificate, that was NOT the case in 1961 when Barack Obama was born.


I never denied his long form didnt exist, however he is not obligated to release it, contrary to your feelings on the matter.

Redhatty if anything you've only created questions for yourself and based the rest of your arguments on assumption. But hey, if you want to sit on the story that Ms Dunham flew to Kenya 8 months pregnant in the early 60s only to then have Obama there then fly back, with no flight or absence records, thats fine and dandy. Thats not going to get you that long you are so greatly in need of, thats not going to get you a good lawsuit.

SG

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty.
Obama has admitted his father was a British Subject when Obama was born. Obama's father never at any time was a U.S. citizen. In fact his father was not even an immigrant to the USA nor was he ever even a permanent resident of the USA.


Lie.

The constitution does not forbid dual citizenship. It also clearly states the natural born citizenship is passed on to those who are merely born on US soil. If you were born off US soil then both your parents have to be US citizens, thats not the case if you were born on US soil. You are yet to prove otherwise. Get the constitution and reference it yourself.

The constitution clearly cites the right to presidency as a birth right. It also clearly doesnt mention anything about natural born citizenship neither does it state in the constitution that both parents have to be citizens if the child is born on US soil.


Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

www.usconstitution.net...

The constitution above defines birth right citizenship.


So call us "Birthers"


Prove to us your not a birther. Show us solid evidence Obama was not born on US soil. Show us this conspiracy goes beyond hypothetical analysis, or assumptions, or speculation. Show us you actually have solid evidence of Obama being born off US soil. That my friend will set you apart.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

There is this:


In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote...



And???? This is a DISSENTING OPINION, it holds no status as law or precedent. While the 14th Amendment basically overturned the ruling in this particular case, the 14th Amendment did not, in fact, grant "Natural Born Citizenship" to any person owing allegiance to a foreign power (subject to the jurisdiction of).


The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”
Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States. (Source)

At birth, regardless of the location of his birth, Barack Obama was a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948, just as his father was.

So Under the 14th Amendment, You can only be a Natural Born Citizen if you are, at birth, subject to the Jurisdiction of the US. As the congressional Hearing testimony above shows, that means ONLY subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not divided in the countries you are subject to.

Barack Obama was born with DUAL CITIZENSHIP (assuming he was born in Hawaii) and therefore is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen."

Sorry the chart with specific case law reference was not to your approval. You are free to read the cases cited to prove the differentiations for yourself.

[edit on 7/24/09 by redhatty]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
At birth, regardless of the location of his birth, Barack Obama was a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948, just as his father was.

So Under the 14th Amendment, You can only be a Natural Born Citizen if you are, at birth, subject to the Jurisdiction of the US. As the congressional Hearing testimony above shows, that means ONLY subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not divided in the countries you are subject to.


Wrong. Your natural born citizenship by US law did not recognize the foreign affairs of other nations, including those of British territorial laws.

In addition, Obama lost dual citizenship at the age of 21, and under Kenyan and british at the time the mere fact he didnt give up his natural born US citizenship made any dual citizenship in the past irrelevant.


Barack Obama was born with DUAL CITIZENSHIP


Nowhere in the constitution does it say he isnt a natural born citizen. Nowhere in the constitution does it state he could never have been eligible for the presidency.


Sorry


No need to be sorry. His still president and your still sitting here complaining about his eligibility.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

In that statement Fukina was refering to the long form birth certificate which she clearly would not be released without Obamas authorization. She did however personally verify the short form which is a certification of birth on Hawaii soil and sufficient enough as evidence of Obamas birth. You and Flyers continue to get it mixed up


Again you are reading into the statement something that is NOT there. The OFFICIAL Statement, on letterhead

How a reporter spins the story is one thing, what the official statement actually says is something else.


"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...

Umm, did you purposely omit the rest of that sentence?


"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.


So you would rather have people believe that a state official verified the authenticity of a digital image with NO CERTIFICATE NUMBER viewable?

And you think WE are Crazy??? Right


Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid.

www.starbulletin.com...

Again, reporter's spin, not what the actual statement (from the day before - 10/31/2008) said.


Then you tell me what is she saying?

That there is, within the records of Hawaii Vital Statistics a file on Barack Obama that does contain his original birth certificate. Nothing more and nothing less.

As shown previously, that original may or may not be an actual Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, it may be a Delayed BC or even one that was registered over a year after Barack Obama was born, with no actual documentation, because Hawaiian Law allowed for such circumstances.


Go to the links. Fukina was presented the current short form birth certificate already called on as a fake by the birthers, she personally verified it. We are refering to the short form, not her statement on the long form.


I did, and now YOU are putting a spin on what you have presented. Janice Okubo, a spokesman, allegedly confirmed that an emailed copy of a digital image sans certificate number was valid.

Fukina NEVER confirmed NOR denied the short form (digital image).

You are WRONG.


True, we will never know 100% whether Obama born in Hawaii, as we can say for past presidents, fortunatly this is why we laws in place. The laws set bounds on what is acceptable enough for eligibility, and Obama has sufficiently satisfied those laws. Apart from the fact the short form is sufficient proof of eligibility, you are yet to correctly reference the laws to prove whats on that short form can be different. As statute 338 only applies to children following 1982 his short form must then reflect directly what is on the long form.


IF a long form EVER existed that was signed by a physician or midwife. Again, if the birth was unattended affidavits would be accepted, even a year after birth.

BTW, thank you for finally admitting that WE JUST DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. That's the whole point & you, a debunker, just validated it!


If you are serious about this conspiracy solid evidence of his birth off US soil will get you that long form.


And if any of it was actually accessible, and not under seal by request (or order) of Barack Obama, we would present the evidence, or go away, whichever ends up being appropriate.


I dont care if its recent buddy, its the law. His sufficiently satisfied the laws of the land.


Except that the Law of the land that would affect his Birth circumstance can ONLY be the ones in effect in 1961, when he was born


Exactly. Statute 338 was created in 1982 for children of Hawaiian parents. As Obama was 21 years of age by the time that law was installed it didnt apply to him, neither did the ammendment you referenced. In addition both parents had to be Hawaiian residents for Obamas short form to then display different information to the long form.


As I stated previously, I cited the entire passage from the source. I NEVER said that ANY of the sections or amendments applied to Barack Obama. Quit implying I am saying something I am not. I did say that there was a lot of room for a parent to manipulate the system to ensure US citizenship to their child, that is ALL I said. Well not quite, I said I wouldn't fault a parent for taking advantage of that and ensuring US citizenship for their child.


I never denied his long form didnt exist, however he is not obligated to release it, contrary to your feelings on the matter.

Redhatty if anything you've only created questions for yourself and based the rest of your arguments on assumption. But hey, if you want to sit on the story that Ms Dunham flew to Kenya 8 months pregnant in the early 60s only to then have Obama there then fly back, with no flight or absence records, thats fine and dandy. Thats not going to get you that long you are so greatly in need of, thats not going to get you a good lawsuit.


Yet again, I NEVER said Mrs Obama (her name at the time) flew anywhere, I never brought up any of those questions at all, quite projecting on me something completely different than what I am saying.

You have already validated 'our' stance, that there is no way, at the present time, that we can be 100% sure of the actual location of Barack Obama's birth.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by redhatty.
Obama has admitted his father was a British Subject when Obama was born. Obama's father never at any time was a U.S. citizen. In fact his father was not even an immigrant to the USA nor was he ever even a permanent resident of the USA.


Lie.


Excuse me? What part is a Lie? That Obama admitted his father was a british subject, or that Obama Senior was never a US citizen, immigrant or permanent resident?

Digging real deep into the "bag of dirty debate tricks" aren't you?


The constitution does not forbid dual citizenship. It also clearly states the natural born citizenship is passed on to those who are merely born on US soil. If you were born off US soil then both your parents have to be US citizens, thats not the case if you were born on US soil. You are yet to prove otherwise. Get the constitution and reference it yourself.


Since a previous post seems to have covered this, I'll refer back to it, if I missed anything, feel free to point it out, as I am sure you will anyway



The constitution clearly cites the right to presidency as a birth right. It also clearly doesnt mention anything about natural born citizenship neither does it state in the constitution that both parents have to be citizens if the child is born on US soil.


The Constitution does not cite ANY Rights to the Presidency, it cites eligibility requirements. See Article 2, section 1, clause 5.


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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


your excerpt below:



Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

www.usconstitution.net...

The constitution above defines birth right citizenship.


Is not even from the Constitution, it is from U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401.

Really if you want to argue what is and isn't provided for by the Constitution regarding anything, be sure you actually know if you are citing the constitution or not.

I *think* you are actually trying to say that the Constitution does not define Natural Born Citizen. That is true. I imagine the framers never anticipated this event, over 200 yrs ago. Then again, they didn't anticipate air conditioning either, but that's off topic...

The SCOTUS did venture close though...

In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.

So ultimately, there is still a doubt, and it needs to be resolved, because at this particular time, it is the heart of the controversy.

Following from that thought, we know in what circumstances there IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, and we also know that Barack Obama's circumstance definitely does NOT FALL in to the NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER category.

as long as there is doubt, there will be people who question.

Don't like it? Then petition your reps, senators & Scotus to resolve it once and for all & put this all to rest.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


Finally some honesty.

Did you demand to see a copy of Bush's birth certificate? If not why not?

How is it you could not believe an Americans defense of Obama but would believe a Kenyan accusing Obama of being a usurper?



First, you didn't answer the question about Bush's birth certificate.

He was just about the most un-American president in history and you don't challenge him? Exactly TWO presidents in American history have led us into an Aggressive war, and exactly ONE of those led us into war solely because of his own personal ego, and lied till he was blue in the face about his reasons. Don't you think there is something fundamentally un-American about that?

There must be something fishy about him, I bet his parents are Canadian. I heard a story on the internet that they crossed the river from New Brunswick at Edmonston and made their way to Kennebunkport to work on the fishing boats. Where's his birth certificate? Why won't he show his birth certificate? What has he got to hide?



How is it? Because they really have nothing to gain... Little worker bees (peeons in societies, here or there) have an inherent honesty about them.


Nothing to gain? Dirt poor people, ignored and abused by their own government? Rich western news people flocking to their poor village bringing in thousands of dollars to guides, interpreters, food vendors, accommodation providers (tent spaces maybe?). Attention being paid to lonely old grandma who has enormous pride in her grandsons accomplishment? Status and authority within the village? Nothing to gain?

Really?



On character and honesty:
Obama and his criminal thugs (should we recall his former states' , former governor , on attempting to 'sell' Obama's vacant senate seat? He said, "that's the way we do politics and business here in Chicago".) are finally being vetted, after the fact, unfortunately. His criminalistic ties are coming out and he will be vetted completely.


After 8 years of Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al you have the nerve to call Obama a thug? Blaigovitch (sp?) is likely a crook. Yeah, Chicago has a history of crooks. Doesn't mean every Chicagoan is any more than every Texan is imbecile. There are 8 million stories in the naked city.



In Kenya, where they likely scratch the dirt for something to eat, are just as proud as any family would be if their 'home town boy done good'. Even in Idaho recently, we saw a whole small town stand together silently awaiting news of one of our hero's taken captive.

Using those verbose character references of individuals and community... I tend to side with the Kenyan's community, official (their ambassador claims Obama was born there and later retracted claiming he thought an interviewer was talking about sr. not jr. Obama) and individual's open honesty.


If you listen to the interview with the Grandmother...wait...

You DID listen to it didn't you? The one un-editted for Faux News?

Because she repeatedly says she remembers when HER son was born in the village. HER son is Obama's FATHER. Even when pressed by the questioner, she corrects him. Your simple, unsophisticated, poor, Kenyan, dirt scratching, Grandma who hadn't seen much electricity in her village let alone TV and certainly not western paparazzi trying to get a sensational spin on a story that no one else has, wouldn't be confused. She was talking about HER son.

The only way this becomes a story for you is in the Faux News editing room.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join