Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

Is your answer, “The Hawaii State Department of Health”?

Sorry, that answer is not a winner.

The Director of Health for the State of Hawaii has so far issued two News Releases. As I blogged about previously, Dr. Fukino’s October 31, 2008 News Release did NOT say any of the following:

1) Obama was born in Hawaii.

2) The CertificatIONof Live Birth (presented on Daily KOS, Fight the Smears, and Factcheck.org) is valid.

3) The CertificatION of Live Birth matches the data found on the original Birth CertificatE on record.

4) “We the People” do not have a tangible interest in the original birth certificate of a candidate for the office of President of the United States, in order to help determine if s/he is Constitutionally eligible to hold that office.

Now, Dr. Fukino’s July 27, 2009 News Release did say, “Obama was born in Hawai‘i”.

Some people point to that and say, “See! The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii!”

But, just like last time, we must parse this statement.
(Remember, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”)

The full statement made on July 27, 2009 was:

STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Dr. Fukino did not say which vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health were used to make this statement.

Was the Hawaii State Department of Health the first government organization to say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

No!

Dr. Fukino’s July 27, 2009 News Release was first made public in an an email to TerriK (a.k.a. MissTickly) at 11:45:54 PM EDT:

From: “Okubo, Janice S.”
Date: July 27, 2009 11:45:54 PM EDT
To: [TerriK – real name redacted]

So, which Government organization was the first to say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

The correct answer is: The United States House of Representatives.

Nearly five hours before Janice Okubo first made Dr. Fukino’s News Release public in that email, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to H. RES. 593, which included the words, “Obama, was born in Hawaii”.  More completely, it said:

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;

Did the Hawai‘i State Department of Health obtain any information about H. RES. 593 and maintain it as a “vital record”?  Did that become the basis for Dr. Fukino’s statement?

Dr. Fukino never said which “vital records” were the basis for claiming “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i”.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America.

Dr. Fukino never said, “Barack Hussein Obama … is a natural born citizen of the United States”.

Dr. Fukino said “Barack Hussein Obama … is a natural-born American citizen”.

But Dr. Fukino never explained how she made that determination.

Dr. Fukino’s use of “natural-born” could simply refer to “natural childbirth”.  The hyphen is significant… the legal definition of “natural-born” is NOT the same as the legal definition of “natural born”. (Remember, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”)

Every citizen of every country in North America, Central America, and South America, can consider themselves an “American citizen”.  I know personally several citizens of Mexico who consider themselves an “American citizen”.

I’ve also seen other reports that Barack Hussein Obama was adopted, as an adult, by a Native American couple.  That would make him a Native American citizen, even if he had originally been born in Kenya!

So, once again, Dr. Fukino issued a statement which gives the appearance of authenticating that COLB as a genuine record originally generated by the DoH.  But when you parse the statement, you find that it does not in fact authenticate the COLB or the data contained on it.

Thankfully, Leo Donofrio has submitted another UIPA request to get to the bottom of this Suessian hoopla.

In closing, take note of this timeline from July 27, 2009 (all times shown in EDT):

7/27/2009 4:20pm:
Mr. Clay moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.

7/27/2009 4:22pm:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8839-8842)

7/27/2009 4:22pm:
DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 593.

7/27/2009 4:46pm:
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mrs. Bachmann objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.

7/27/2009 5:45pm: Janice Okubo sends email to TerriK only mentioning “the statement issued by the state last year in the Fall.”

7/27/2009 6:32pm:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8846)

7/27/2009 6:55pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

7/27/2009 6:55pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 – 0 (Roll no. 647). (text: CR H8839)

7/27/2009 9:00pm:
TerriK sends email to Janice Okubo:

Date: July 27, 2009 9:00:29 PM EDT
To: “Okubo, Janice S.” Subject: Re: Your help is appreciated

Ms. Okubo,

Aloha! Thank you so much for replying quickly. And, thank you for the ‘infamous’ press release–it is a document I refer to every so often and having my very own is much appreciated. I’ll consider this document my brush with fame AND infamy! Frankly, I wonder what you must think of the ‘Birther’ inquiries and would like to state upfront, that I completely respect Hawaii’s Privacy laws. I ask that you answer the following, if privacy laws allow:

“Is the 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, able to state they have verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

I fear my carefully chosen wording appears like an effort to ‘pull a fast one’–however, I modeled it on the following statement you were able to make publicly on your press release last year :

“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. “

I hope this is reasonable to ask. If not, can you point me to the applicable statute?

Many thanks for your attention to this matter.

7/27/2009 11:45pm: Janice Okubo sends email to TerriK with “the statement issued today by the Hawaii State Director of Health.” However, the copy she sent to TerriK contained the word “more” at the bottom of the page, indicating there was more material on another page, while the News Release that was subsequently posted to the web site did not contain the word “more”.

—————

The bottom line?

—————

It appears that Dr. Fukino was not willing to say that Obama was born in Hawaii until the U.S. House of Representatives said Obama was born in Hawaii!

—————

And remember this… who said:

…the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country

…the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America…

 
we are the home of the President-elect of the USA…

Was that in the Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s Department Of Health Director?

No!

It was in the Official Report of the Kenyan National Assembly Wednesday, 5th November, 2008!!!

See Also:
Son of This Soil 

Red Pill’s “Amplified Version” of Fukino’s 2nd News Release

Hawaii Sent Two Certificates to Congress, Won’t Send the Third

The Contrapositive: If No Long Form Birth Certificate, Then Obama “Birth Narrative” is Fraudulent

George Washington, John Jay, and Vattel’s Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

UPDATE September 9, 2010:

Certificate of Nomination Summary
By butterdezillion

Why Pelosi and Germond Signed a Different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii

——–
UPDATE October 14, 2010:
In the post above, I link to posts on both MissTickly’s blog and Leo Donofrio’s blog. Unfortunately, both of them have taken their original posts offline, so those links are now dead links. I have, however, been able to contact MissTickly, and she provided this archived version of her post (including comments made by others): http://www.scribd.com/doc/20611487/Miss-Tickly-Our-Worst-Nightmare-Confirmed

——–
UPDATE January 19, 2011:

Could H. RES. 593 be used as “prima facie” evidence by the State of Hawaii to issue Dr. Fukino’s second News Release and finally make the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

I think the answer is yes, based on

Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 902. Self-authentication

(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate

But don’t worry… they’ll likely manufacture one for Obama.

I have Questions for Speaker Boehner.

This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

  1. Pingback: Parsing the Statement by Dr. Fukino about Barack Hussein Obama’s Official Birth Certificate « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  2. baysailor says:

    Are you still beating this dead horse? You are out of your mind and wasting a lot of time. But go ahead and enjoy it. It’s your blog.

  3. Bryan Davis says:

    I have followed your writing for months but have never commented. Keep up the good work. Our country’s life is at stake.

  4. baysailor,

    I do not consider the Constitution a “dead horse”, and I have had enough of foreign and domestic enemies beating upon it.

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  5. Bryan Davis,

    Thank you for your comment. Our country’s life is indeed at stake.

    Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House
    by Barack Obama

  6. Truth yields freedom. Keep telling it.

  7. Thanks, Larry. I appreciate the twitter, too. We need to get the truth out to as many people as possible.

  8. Remember the role that the “18½ minute gap” played in Watergate?

    The White House then agreed to comply with the subpoena and gave some of the subpoenaed conversations to Chief Judge Sirica. The White House informed the Court that two subpoenaed conversations had not been recorded, and that an 18½ minute gap existed on a third tape, tape 342, which recorded a conversation between President Nixon and Chief of Staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman on June 20, 1972.

    What existed in the “4 page gap” of the Obama-Dunham divorce records?

    Why are pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 missing from the Obama-Dunham divorce records?

    On the Obama-Dunham divorce records, you see a handwritten number on pages 1 through 7, and then the final page, 12.

    What information was contained on the missing pages?

    Could it have included a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II?

  9. Ryan says:

    Let me get this straight. You are saying that this woman inserted a hyphen into natural born to change the meaning, and she used “American citizen” instead of “United States Citizen”.

    How does anybody take you seriously?

    I am now almost positive that this blog, and your entire persona are a work of performance art. There is no other explanation.

  10. Jax says:

    Red, God appeared to me tonight and let me know that Leo Donofrio and “Miss Tickly” are a bunch of delusional narcissists who are making a literal federal case out of parsing the e-mails the low-level state bureaucrats to the nth degree. When their nonsense gets thrown out of court as frivolous, will you hail me as a prophet? If not, how many correct predictions on your failures would I have to make before you admit I have a direct communication with the Almighty?

  11. yo says:

    Hey ryan and jax. Is that the best you can do? Using the alinsky rules, right? Try to make fun of and humiliate. Nice try.

    I guess if you CAN’T PRODUCE A VALID BIRTH CERTIFICATE for your new messiah, you’re reduced to that kind of stuff. But, rational people know all about your kind and their tactics.

  12. Jax says:

    Gosh, “yo”, I’m sorry my posts are casting doubts on your anonymous rantings on the internet. Tell you what, why don’t you go through Red’s collection of quotes taken out of context, half-truths and outright lies and find me a prediction he’s made that actually came to pass. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

    Of course, Red is someone who has said on this very site that he’s “profoundly grateful” that Al Qaeda received arms and money from the Reagan Administration, and was overjoyed when America didn’t get the Olympics, so I guess I just take whatever he says with a big grain of salt. I just don’t trust someone who openly supports terrorism and hates America as much as Red does. I mean, how much more clear can he be? The “red” pill? The man is an obvious Communist.

  13. Pingback: Red Pill’s “Amplified Version” of Fukino’s 2nd News Release « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  14. yo says:

    Hey jax,

    More alinskyiting I see. I’m SURPRISED! LOL

    Why don’t you just ask yourself why barry has his lawyers traipsing all over the country fighting any and all attempts to get a court to order him to show his birth certificate? If you can answer that, in any way that makes sense, maybe we’ll look into what you’re saying. Not holding my breath. lol

    We’re not concerned with your tactics, or the innumerable media types who write articles every day, ridiculing everyone who asks to see barry’s birth certificate, (saying he’s already shown it), at the same time (as i’ve already stated), HIS LAWYERS ARE FIGHTING EVERY ATTEMPT TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    It would almost be funny if it weren’t so utterly pathetic.

  15. Ryan says:

    HIS LAWYERS ARE FIGHTING EVERY ATTEMPT TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    I’ve yet to see some evidence of that. It seems that the governing body in control of his birth records has already confirmed the birth records. Not really sure what they would be fighting since no legal case has been made against Obama. This is a dead end. When will you give up?

  16. Ladysforest says:

    Oh Ryan,

    Why are you so very concerned about convincing people to give up? If your point of view is so very different, then why are you not here presenting any thing to substansiate it? Mockery is all very well and good if one is simply tring to discredit people, although it rarely works. Weak tools are ineffective.

    You are a weak tool.

  17. Ryan says:

    Ladysforest:

    I am here because the lot of you are voters and you have an influence. People come here and are influenced by your faulty reasoning. There are blatant lies being spread here, and I need to expose them to the best of my ability.

    If you read, and agree with the articles here, then you too are in need of an intellectual beat-down. Take a step back, and look at the facts objectively. Is there any evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii? If you look at the evidence, where do you think most people would determine he was born? Give your empty head a shake.

  18. Jax says:

    Here, kids, I’ll tell you what. There must be some Hawaiian birthers, right? Here’s what you do. Have them send off for their birth certificate. When they get back the exact document that Obama has displayed, you get them to say “No, no, no, I want my REAL birth certificate.” Then just toss THAT up online and I’ll have my document experts review it. That would prove your point about how easy they are to get, right?

    And Ladysforest, rest assured, not all of us want you to give up. By representing an extreme divorce with reality, you drive the moderates away from the Republican party, thus giving the Democrats a shot to hold seats they would otherwise have lost in the 2010 elections. If you were smart, you would spend your time and energy stumping for Republican candidates in areas held by Democrats who aren’t polling well. But you’re not smart. No, you’re taking the spoiled child route of wanting YOUR WAY and WANTING IT NOW!!! So you wave your flag into battle behind a paranoid Soviet dentist, her convicted felon assistant and a poker playing attorney with delusions of grandeur.

    And yes, yes, I know. Alinsky, straw man, ad hominem, etc. There’s a difference between mocking a strong political enemy to lessen their impact and laughing at clowns because they’re funny. Guess which area you fall into?

  19. Ryan,
    You told Ladysforest:

    If you read, and agree with the articles here, then you too are in need of an intellectual beat-down.

    I think Ladysforest already gave you an intellectual beat-down:

    You are a weak tool.

  20. Ryan,
    You asked Ladysforest:

    Is there any evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii?

    I ask you,

    Has any certified evidence been presented directly from the State of Hawaii to conclusively prove that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawai‘i at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961?

    The answer is no.

    And even if such evidence were to be presented at some point in the future, that evidence cannot change the fact that Obama was born a natural born British subject because his father was a British subject.

    Our founders original intent was to pevent “foreigners” (which includes British subjects and “Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State“) from holding the office of President and Commander-in-Chief. The only exception made was for those who were mere “citizens”, not “natural born citizens”, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This exception was absolutely necessary because the first citizens of the United States became citizens of the United States on July 4, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The very first children born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents were born in 1776. Hence, it would not be until 1811 that those children would start turning 35 years old and meet the age requirement to hold the office of President. Without the exception “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, there would not have been anyone who was Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President until at least 1811.

  21. Ladysforest says:

    So, Ryan and Jax,

    You have the tactics all wrong. Do you understand yet that your supreme leader made the statement himself that he was born under British rule through his Kenyan father?

    Do you accept that part of his own, self declared bio? Lets presume that you do. Then let us back that up with the fact that your hero had that factual information posted on his own “fight the smears” site. Are you both still with me up to this point? Which also had the proclamation that obama was a – get ready to gasp – A NATIVE citizen. In those words! Fact, you can check it out for yourselves.

    Now, born a dual citizen, even on US soil, you have dual allegiance. This can be clearly and irrefutably shown by obamas own embracing of being governed by British rule through his father.

    Now, one cannot be made out to be a natural born citizen if one is born with allegiance to another country.

    Why do you go on the defensive to deny what obama himself admits?

    What do you gain by it?

    Sure, you get your jollies trolling around airing your contemptuous ignorance in childishly mocking people that actually bring solid facts to the table instead of living for that next tingle up their leg.
    But know this, I will not go away. You may hurl any words in my direction that you care to. It matters not.

    I, and most people drawn to this issue, care only about the Constitutional eligibility issue.

    Your weak tactics have no effect on the truth, and the truth was admitted to by obama himself.

    If you have some sort of problem with him having let that cat out of the bag himself, I suggest you take it up with him.

    You bore us.

  22. Jax says:

    “Our founders original intent was to pevent “foreigners” (which includes British subjects and “Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State“) from holding the office of President and Commander-in-Chief. The only exception made was for those who were mere “citizens”, not “natural born citizens”, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.”

    Wow, you’d think if that were their intent they would have, you know, given that definition in the Constitution. Or the Bill of Rights. Or an amendment to the Constitution. Or any legal decision ever in our 200+ year history. Oh, they didn’t? It’s a loophole you made up? And Vattel’s “natural born” actually translates to “native born” from the original French? Ah, OK then.

    I remain shocked that you’re not getting anywhere in court.

  23. Math says:

    LadyForest and Red: if you have such solid proof why do all the cases that make it before a judge get laughed out? Orly got her butt handed to her and was even threatened of being accused of contempt. Just asking.

  24. Ladysforest says:

    Darling Jax,

    I don’t recall having any court action in my schedule. Oh! You’re making presumptions again. I get it.

    But, since you are clearly a genius, which I’m sure we all concede, (not really-I’m just screwing with you!) perhaps you can then present the argument to me on how that McCain person was declared to be a “natural born citizen”.

    Trot it out, I’m waiting.

  25. Math says:

    I don’t recall having any court action in my schedule. Oh! You’re making presumptions again. I get it.

    Are you really dumb enough to think he meant you personally?

  26. Jax says:

    “Now, one cannot be made out to be a natural born citizen if one is born with allegiance to another country.”

    Hi. That’s incorrect. False. Not true. Wrong. Stop stating opinion as fact.

    We have already had a President whose father was a foreign citizen at his birth. Chester A. Arthur was President. That happened. To remove Obama from office and invalidate any laws he passed, you would have to invalidate the entire Arthur presidency, any decisions passed by the two Supreme Court justices he put on the bench and a good portion of our tariff law. But that doesn’t occur to you, because all you’re concerned about is getting your own way.

    No Supreme Court is going to remove a sitting president (even if they could, which they can’t) because of a purely speculative definition of “natural born” endorsed by internet detectives and exactly 0 respected Constitutional scholars, Democrat or Republican.

    In short, you’re wrong.

  27. Jax says:

    McCain? Sure. In the mind of most sane people, there are two kinds of citizens: naturalized and natural born. Naturalized means you were born somewhere else, came here and became a citizen, natural born means you were born an American citizen. McCain, like Obama, was a citizen when he was born, ergo he is a natural born citizen. Buy into Donofrio’s labrynthian reasoning of “the ground and the blood” if you want to. But there’s not a single amendment, law or court decision that agrees with him.

  28. Ladysforest says:

    Oh Jax, Jax , Jax,

    No you Diddnt! You didn’t just present that nonsense about Chester Arthur did you? You are so silly. Look out, you’re beginning to flail around pointlessly. Why are you doing this to yourself? Did they just take your “Big Book Of Smart Comebacks” away from you?

    The mans father lived in the USA and became a US citizen a few years after CA was born. Way before CA ran for president. So, not exactly the way it should have been, no. But, lets compare:
    obamas father was just a foreign student, here for a brief time, and never became a US citizen. And lets not forget that he had a wife in Kenya at the same time he “married” obamas mother. Lovely fellow. So, yes, CA got over on the issue of NBC. Hey, if no one brings it up at the time, no issue exists. That is the same thing obama was (is) trying for, hey-if no one notices I said I was born a British citizen, maybe I can pull off that whole CA thing.

    Except he told the universe all by himself!

    Are you so lacking in morals that you consider a crime that went unpunished one time is alright to repeat?

    No, I will take the high road on this and not make that assumption.

    But I expect that you will prove it to us all shortly.

  29. Ryan says:

    Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?

    BORN ABROAD!!!! Did you not read that part? Obama was not born abroad.

    This is to grant citizenship for those born abroad. One of the reasons they require both parents to be citizens is because otherwise a person could theoretically be born with the citizenship of three countries. It’s also not normally required that a person undergo DNA testing to obtain citizenship, and without this the identity of the father can be falsified.

    Do you scour the web for evidence that you might be wrong? That’s what people looking for the honest truth do.

  30. Eductate Educate yourself on Chester Arthur.

    The only precedent he set for Obama is that he was a usurper who deceived people into thinking he was eligible to hold the office of President.

  31. Jax says:

    “Are you so lacking in morals that you consider a crime that went unpunished one time is alright to repeat?”

    Gosh, I guess I just don’t consider breaking laws that you made up to be a “crime.”

    “Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?”

    They don’t. That’s not what it says. Just because they use the plural “parents,” it doesn’t follow that they’re excluding the singular “parent.” The law tends to get pretty specific on these things.

  32. Ladysforest says:

    Ryan,

    If I may, I would like to point out that which should be glaringly obvious even to a, ahem, person such as yourself.

    You are making a desperate attempt to make some point that this is a special provision only meant for people born outside of the US, in case the poor things might be born with triple citizenship.

    You are wrong. Jax claimed that: “naturalized and natural born” are the only types of citizenship. There are three. Native, on US soil, natural, on US soil to two US citizens, naturalized, born elsewhere, then became an American.

    There was, as you neglect to include in your post, an issue over McCains birthplace. He was born in Panama while his TWO US CITIZEN parents were there in service to the USA.

    So clearly, there can be no doubt, that to be a “natural born” US citizen one must be the issue of two US citizens. The parents can be Natural, native, or naturalized at the time the child is born.

    Now, follow along: “the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

    Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”

    Notice it said American citizen(s). Plural. Meaning Two, count em, Two!

    Can’t have it both ways.

    Now, do I think they threw McCain a bogus NBC status? Yes, I think they did. Strictly speaking. However, there is the whole “parents serving the county” thing. In other words the parents were compelled to be where they were. They were not merely traveling about seeing the world, and, whoops!

    The very simple FACT is that he was declared to be NBC, due to having two US citizens as his parents.

    Now, please dispute this.

  33. Pingback: Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”? « We the People of the United States

  34. Jax says:

    “Eductate yourself on Chester Arthur.”

    You should “eductate” yourself.

    Was Chester Arthur born only one American parent? Yes.

    Was Chester Arthur President? Yes.

    Has there ever been a law, article, amendment to the Constitution or ruling that endorses your definition of natural born citizen? No.

    You want Obama kicked out of office and all laws he signed wiped off the books. If you do that to Obama, you’d have to do that to Arthur, and the entire American justice system grinds to a halt, based on an obscure and convoluted definition of a two-word phrase.

    In other words, you’re asking the Supreme Court to destroy the American legal system based on a definition which is endorsed by birthers. It will never happen, nor should it.

  35. Ryan says:

    Ladysforest, the two parent requirement, couples with being born on a US army base, or to parents on official government business is a way to not punish parents on official government business, and grant their children “natural born” status despite being born on foreign soil. Otherwise, natural born means born on US soil, regardless of your parents.

    I’ve asked this of Mr Red Pill a couple of times without any answer, so let me pose a scenario to you. If a newborn, hours old baby is dropped off at a hospital somewhere in the US, with parents unknown, what is the citizenship status of that child? If that baby is immediately adopted by an American family, raised an American, obviously born in the US, can that child become president, or will you hold over her head the fact that one cannot prove the citizenship of the parents she never knew?

    There are tow types of citizenship. Natural born and naturalized. Show me one official US government document that says otherwise. You guys are all about following the letter oft eh law – well show it to me or shut up.

  36. Ladysforest says:

    Ryan,

    I was under the distinct impression that we were discussing obamas Constitutional eligibility.

    You get distracted easily it seems. Now you are presenting some rambling gibberish about adopted children. To the law, I believe, once a child is adopted, those parents are considered the same as if the child was born of their bodies. That’s been established and accepted. This is not the case with obama, at all, or in any way, so why do you bring it up?

    I would gently suggest to you that if you find the content on this blog offensive to your sensibilities, that you take yourself off to a place of like minded individuals, there to indulge in a wonderful reaffirmation of all the propaganda and pap that has been advanced by your beloved leaded.

    If you ever do come up to the surface, and are not afraid to simply ask yourself the following question: “what if this really is the truth?”, we will be here, waiting to help you.

  37. Ryan says:

    This is interesting. So a child’s citizenship can change when being adopted? So a child can be born a British subject, due to his parents’ citizenship, but become one of you “natural born” chosen people upon adoption? That’s cool. What age do you allow this alteration of history to occur? Does it work the other way? If a child is a natural born child, and has two American citizen parents, but loses them in a car accident, and is subsequently adopted by a nice Muslim immigrant family from Jordan who retains only landed immigrant status, is that child no longer a natural born citizen?

    Perhaps someone should have written down these rules somewhere.

    Here’s the deal. To be the president, one needs to pop out of a mother somewhere in the country, and must retain that citizenship continuously up until the end of his term or presidency. That’s it. There’s no written down rule stating any further requirements. If it’s not written down – it’s not law. How can you argue with that? Can a person be convicted of a crime that is not in the criminal code, merely because a judge happens upon an act he thinks should be criminalized?

    There are checks and balances in place to ensure the country gets the president they want. It’s called voting, and it happens at several levels, and there are many opportunities for a party or a voter to reject a candidate.

    Vote for your guy next time, and encourage others to do the same- that’s all you need to do. Hopefully someone can fill his Fox News time slot if he wins.

  38. Jax says:

    “You are wrong. Jax claimed that: “naturalized and natural born” are the only types of citizenship. There are three. Native, on US soil, natural, on US soil to two US citizens…”

    You’re still wrong. There is no law that defines natural born citizen that excludes children born on American soil to one American parent. At all. There never has been. Say it a bunch more times, you’ll still be wrong.

    “Now, follow along: “the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

    Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”

    Notice it said American citizen(s). Plural. Meaning Two, count em, Two!

    Can’t have it both ways. ”

    Um… unless he went on to say that a person with only one American parent who was born in the US is NOT a natural born citizen, you absolutely can have it both ways. There is no reason that both statements cannot be true. Claiming one does not negate the other. You’re wrong again. Do you just not notice because you’re always wrong?

  39. Ladysforest says:

    Jax.

    “Um… unless he went on to say that a person with only one American parent who was born in the US is NOT a natural born citizen, you absolutely can have it both ways. There is no reason that both statements cannot be true. Claiming one does not negate the other. You’re wrong again. Do you just not notice because you’re always wrong?”

    Did you read this over after you wrote it?

    Did it take you a long time to come up with this most inane supposition that could ever be advanced?

    Please try again. And this time, please put a little effort into it.

  40. Jax says:

    Oh, I’m sorry, did you want me to go slower?

    I say a natural born citizen is someone who is born an American citizen, either by being born on American soil or having citizenship bestowed on them by a parent or parents. This is the commonly accepted definition of the term.

    You say the person has to be born to two US citizens, on American soil. You’re wrong, and the phrase has never been defined this way in any law, article of the Constitution, amendment or court decision. At all. So, that’s a false statement, right there. Still with me?

    Three statements, OK? Here we go:

    A child born in a foreign country to American parents is a natural born citizen.

    A child born on American soil to one American parent is a natural born citizen.

    A US Senator says that Statement 1 is true.

    First, under MY definition of natural born citizen, he’s right. Under YOUR definition of natural born citizen, he’s wrong, and John McCain isn’t a natural born citizen either.

    Second, one… statement… being… true… does… not… mean… the… other… statement… is… false. It doesn’t disagree with or disprove the other statement. Are you following the logic?

    Read it a few times. Mull it over. Draw yourself a graph, if you think that’ll help.

  41. Ladysforest says:

    My dear friend Jax,

    The Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
    So,
    A close reading of Article 2 Section 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….

    …shows that the phrase “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” modifies both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.”
    A distinction was made.
    Was a specific law entered? No.
    However precedents were set.

    Regarding natural born citizen, you said:
    “You’re wrong, and the phrase has never been defined this way in any law, article of the Constitution, amendment or court decision.”

    You are not correct about this. Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?
    And just one of several Supreme Court decisions on this issue? Wong Kim Ark.

    Then this little jewel drops:
    “Second, one… statement… being… true… does… not… mean… the… other… statement… is… false. It doesn’t disagree with or disprove the other statement. Are you following the logic?”

    Ahh, but how can one follow logic if no logic was presented?

    So, please pick your pearls of wisdom up and run along.

    Since you seem distressed that your illogical conclusions are being dismissed out of hand, you need to go find yourself a friendly blog. No one here really wants to hurt your feelings, but you are just the odd ball that doesn’t fit. I’m sorry, but this is true.

  42. Captain Steve says:

    Well done. You’re spot on. Something’s fishy alright. It’s Obama and his conspirators.

    I see you have some hostile bloggers. Awesome! That means you’re doing your job! Good on ya!

    After watching the pro-obama bloggers for about 18 months, I’m convinced that the “frequent posters” work directly for obama (via fight-the-smears or the like). It’s pretty obvious once you start to see how predictable they are. They NEVER accept the validity of any statement (no matter how true) that doesn’t fit their marching orders.

    It’s a total waste of time to “argue” with them. They aren’t looking for truth or understanding. They’re just trying to knock down obama dissent, and keep lies in play such as, “obama’s mom was a citizen, so he’s natural born.”

    http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/10/07/the-obama-justice-departments-secret-blogging-team-is-it-illegal/

    If there wasn’t anything to the citizenship issue, Obummer wouldn’t be hiring “browns-shirt bloggers” to smear those who question. They can see the obama charade collapsing; they are out in one last-ditch effort with every finger and toe in the dike; their fear is maxed out; they are $hitting in their pants! They are the “Custer’s Last Stand” or “Baghdad Bob” of the failed obama era!

    Keep up the pressure, but stay out of the way when the dike ruptures! Fail fraud TOTUS fail!

    OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND YOUR OTHER RECORDS!!!!!

    HOPE-for-CHANGE

  43. Jax says:

    “Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?”

    It doesn’t, dear heart. You’re wrong. This is what I’ve been trying to explain to you. You’re not getting it because you have a mind like a go-kart track. You just keep going in circles until you spin out.

    You’re saying that BECAUSE the Senate resolution uses the plural “parents” when discussing McCain’s status as a natural born citizen, THEREFORE someone with the the singular “parent” cannot be a natural born citizen.

    This is false. Both can be true. The logic does not follow. What do you need to understand this? I mean, you could at least explain WHY you think one has to be false if the other is true. I can help you, I’m extremely patient with people who have problems understanding simple concepts.

  44. Jax says:

    Yes, how dare we try to “knock down dissent” with our facts and logic. Captain Steve, I’ve seen you on the Examiner predicting the fall of Obama for about 10 months now. How about we skip the arguments, you predict a date that the whole thing is going to go down, and I come back and laugh at you when you’re wrong. Good?

  45. Captain Steve says:

    Jax faxs? Yea, right. Here’s some facts for you.

    James Madison wrote the Constitution and used “natural born citizen” to refer to a person born to a US citizen mother and US citizen father. The class of “native-born” citizen was not established until the 15th amendment, and it did not amend Article II.

    Vattel’s Law of Nations also holds “natural born” as requiring two citizen parents and born on US soil.

    The American Law Review reported on citizenship in the Sep/Oct 1884 issue. Page two of the report states that “natural born” citizenship is the result of being born to TWO CITIZEN PARENTS!

    Because of his British father, and dual citizenship, Obama was not, is not, and never will be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. His birthplace is meaningless when it comes to his eligibility.

    HOPE-for-CHANGE

  46. Jax says:

    James Madison: Not only do you not cite how he referred to it, even if you’re right, he neglected to write his particular definition into the Constitution, so guess what? Not the law.

    Really? Does Vattel’s Law of Nations require two citizen parents and born on US soil? I was under the impression that the US didn’t exist when Vattel wrote his book. How prescient of him.

    The American Law Review is a newspaper. Someone on that newspaper wrote an article where they, like you, are wrong. Not the law.

    Failure is a stinky cologne, Captain Steve. Keep splashing it on.

  47. Ladysforest says:

    Ah Jax,

    Why do you not bring anything to support you theories?

    Where is your supporting evidence or court rulings, ect.?

    Why do you not accept that corruption put your usurper in the White House?

    Instead you burble forth nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims, followed with what can only be described as an attempt to present a completely ridiculous and utterly flawed bit of something or other that you insist on referring to as “logic”.

    Here’s an example:
    “This is false. Both can be true. The logic does not follow. What do you need to understand this? I mean, you could at least explain WHY you think one has to be false if the other is true.”

    Lord!
    Work that on out for yourself spanky.

    Can you please advance something worthy of debate? Can you?

    You are boring and ineffectual.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s