Barney Frank (D-MA) calls on the media to “Do your job” and Demand to see the birth certificate…

… of someone who isn’t even Constitutionally required to be a “natural born citizen”…

Tongue firmly in cheek, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Tuesday afternoon called on reporters to demand to see the birth certificate of new Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii). As Djou (pictured here) was being sworn into office, Frank walked the hallway of the Speaker’s Lobby off the House floor calling on the media to “do your job” and review Djou’s papers.

To be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of Representative, Charles Djou has to be at least 25 years old and a citizen of the United States for at least the last 7 years.  Not a “natural born citizen” since birth, but rather just a “citizen” for the last 7 years.

But thank you, Barney for demanding that the media “do [their] job” and review Djou’s papers.  I would like nothing more than for Djou to produce his long-form birth certificate for the media to review, then ask the media to expect the same from Obama.  A long-form birth certificate for Obama can’t qualify Obama as a natural born citizen, but it just might definitively disqualify him.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Barney Frank (D-MA) calls on the media to “Do your job” and Demand to see the birth certificate…

  1. I support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

    I support and defend the Rule of Law.

    I fully support having Djou produce the official documents to prove that he is a U.S. citizen (born a natural born U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to 2 U.S. citizen parents, born a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, born on a U.S. citizen on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent who was old enough to convey U.S. citizenship to him, or naturalized as a U.S. citizen at least 7 years ago) and that he is at least 25 years old.

    I also fully support having Obama produce the official documents to prove that he is a natural born U.S. citizen who was at least 35 years old when he was elected. But, Obama’s campaign has already admitted that he was born a British subject, so they have already admitted that he was not born a natural born U.S. citizen. His birth location can’t make him a natural born U.S. citizen. His birth location can make him a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born U.S. citizen becuase his birth location can’t change the British subjecthood of his father and therefore himself.

    I fully support having Quo Warranto cases brought against any elected U.S. official who cannot conclusively prove that they are Constitutionally eligible to hold each and every Federal office that they have held.

    Usurpers should be removed from office, tried for treason and/or sedition, and every action performed by them in office nullified and expunged.

  2. hardy says:

    The official birth certificate will be sufficient. It does not have to be the original.

    Obama, by the way, has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it–that he was born in Hawaii in 1961–were twice confirmed by the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii.

    Dual citizenship or the citizenship of a parent has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Every citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of a citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    That is why Obama’s election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US congress. Not a single member of congress believed that the citizenship of the parent or dual nationality affects Natural Born Citizen status.

  3. The C says:

    On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama signed into law Executive Order 13489. Section 2 is the place to start reading.

  4. hardy says:

    The executive order, Executive Order 13489, applies only to the FEDERAL, PRESIDENTIAL documents of presidents and former presidents. It has no relation to state documents or college documents, and it actually makes it harder for presidents and former presidents to seal their documents. It changes the policy of Bush, which was to seal virtually every document, back to something like the situation during the Reagan presidency in which it was difficult to seal documents.

    In any case, it has no relation to Obama’s birth records, which are and always were private documents. However, Obama has shown a copy of his official birth certificate from Hawaii, which says that he was born in Hawaii, and that fact has been confirmed twice by the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii.

  5. Math says:

    However, Obama has shown a copy of his official birth certificate from Hawaii, which says that he was born in Hawaii, and that fact has been confirmed twice by the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii

    Cue the 2 pages copy-paste from Mr. Pill.

  6. Ryan says:

    hardy, very well said. One thing you must realize though, is that Mr. Pill resides in a universe where any statement in support of Obama is false, and any wild conspiracy theory that shows Obama to be a non-citizen, muslim, communist, born in Kenya, or a racist bigot is not only plausible, but likely.

  7. Dual citizenship or the citizenship of a parent has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status.

    Says you, hardy. But lifelong Democrat Breckenridge Long – an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State under FDR – disagreed with your false assertion:

    “It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

    There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?

  8. And Math,
    To the 1,075 people involved in his Electoral College election, certification, and swearing-in, Obama has never released anything other than a URL with a .JPG image of a document that has a lot in common with an obvious forgery . That is not acceptable documentation for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and should not have been considered acceptable documentation by the 1,075:

    538 Electoral College Electors,
    435 Representatives,
    100 Senators,
    1 Vice-President, and
    1 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

    I have no reason to trust current Hawaiian officials when Governor Lingle can’t even get her facts right and they have to pass a new law to stop people from asking questions.

  9. Frin says:

    And both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court disagrees with your assertion Mr Pill,

    From Wong Kim Ark:

    [quote]
    In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary. [/quote]

  10. hardy says:

    The legal and constitutional opinion that every child born in the USA is a natural born citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats is OVERWHELMING. Virtually no legal scholar after the Wong Kim Ark ruling has ever said that the citizenship of a parent or a foreign law affects the Natural Born Citizenship status of a US-born child.

    You, who are supposedly a conservative, should remember that it is a conservative principle (with which I agree) that a foreign law can have no effect in the USA. A foreign law cannot make a child who normally would be a Natural Born Citizen a person who is not a Natural Born Citizen. If it could, foreign governments would be meddling in our elections all the time. Moreover, foreign birth citizenship laws are crazy.

    I saw on another site a man who had been born in the USA of Polish parents. His wife had also been born in the USA. But, he said that Poland still considers that his children, both of whom had been born in the USA, were dual citizens of Poland.

    Are these children, who were born in the USA of US parents any less loyal because Poland considers that they have dual nationality? Would they be any less loyal if their parents had also been born in Poland? Would they be any less loyal if their parents had been Polish citizens at the time of birth, so long as the child was born in the US.

    Not according to our laws. The meaning of Natural Born to the writers of the Constitution was simply “born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.” And, in keeping with that, Madison explained that in the USA the sole criterion of legal allegiance is birth in the USA. Blackstone held that a person could not have divided loyalty, that her or his sole loyalty was to the place of birth.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    And

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    (Notice, there is no mention of dual nationality or of the citizenship of a parent affecting the Natural Born Citizen status of a person born in the jurisdiction.)

    Obama was born in the jurisdiction of the United States. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii and again by the governor of Hawaii.

  11. Frin,

    Perhaps you should take notice that what you quoted says “native-born citizen”, not “natural born citizen”.

    You grossly misinterprint the Wong Kim Ark case, which explicitly avoided calling Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen”.

    4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”

  12. Virtually no legal scholar after the Wong Kim Ark ruling has ever said that the citizenship of a parent or a foreign law affects the Natural Born Citizenship status of a US-born child.

    That is bovine excrement. There are several legal scholars who, after the Wong Kim Ark ruling, have said that the citizenship of a parent affects the Natural Born Citizenship status of a US-born child. FDR’s Secretary of State is one of them.

  13. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows

    According to his official birth certificate, at which hospital was he born?

    According to his official birth certificate, who was the doctor who delivered him?

    the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii and again by the governor of Hawaii.

    Oh sure, the governor of Hawaii claimed:

    we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact

    But that is not a fact. That is a lie. Dr. Fukino did not, in either of her news releases, confirm that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. I believe she can’t legally say that, becuase she has no evidence of that.

    Until June 7th, 2009, United Press International (UPI) and Snopes.com contained statements that Obama was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu. Then, that was scrubbed and changed after a U.S. Representative from Hawaii claimed “Barack Hussein Obama, was born on 4 August 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center.” Snopes claims they made the change because Wikipedia made the change.

    The “evidence” of a connection between Obama and Kapi’olani Medical Center is limited to a letter that was forged on the internet and read by Democratic Representative Neil Abercrombie (who now wants to be Hawaii’s Governor…hmmm…perhaps so that he can cover his tracks and “create” evidence? And oh, by the way, he was just replaced as Representative by Republican Charles Djou, whose birth certificate Barney Frank demands to see! Nothing like Democratic Socialist projection, is there?!). I’d love to see Barney Frank demand that the State of Hawaii send to him and every other member of Congress, under seal, a certified copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate to prove that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center on August 4, 1961. I know that’s asking for pigs to fly, but I’d love to see it happen.

    And finally, if Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, why did his own wife say that his “home country” is anything other than the United States?

    Michelle Obama, Birther

  14. Math says:

    And oh, by the way, he was just replaced as Representative by Republican Charles Djou, whose birth certificate Barney Frank demands to see!

    The fact that you do not realize that Barney Frank is laughing and ridiculing you says a lot about you. It comes back to what Ryan said earlier.

  15. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Perhaps you should read the full of WKA, where you quickly realise that they use the term natural and native interchangeably. If you don’t realise that, perhaps you could point me to some authoritative source that shows that there are 3 classes of US citizens.

  16. Dave says:

    This discussion has really got me thinking — Congress accepted Obama’s election without a peep, even though these questions had been raised months earlier, so they can’t pretend they didn’t know. And these Congressmen — have they ever offered any proof of their eligibility? There are 535 Congressman — and about 220 of them are Republicans — and the number of birth certificates I’ve seen is a big fat zero. Doesn’t it seem funny that the same bunch of people who don’t want to ask questions about Obama’s eligibility, also don’t want to document their own eligibility? And these are the same people who aren’t showing anybody their I-9s.

    I only know one candidate for Congress that’s shown a BC — Gurley Martin — who was running for the GOP nomination for Senator from Kentucky, but lost the primary. Rand Paul won that primary — have we seen his birth certificate? I think the Tea Party can really make a difference here. Don’t vote for anyone that can’t be bothered to show us they are eligible for the job!

  17. Ryan says:

    According to his official birth certificate, at which hospital was he born?

    The fact that you care about which hospital he was born at is proof that you are not really coming at this issue with sound mind and honest intentions.

    You need to go back almost 100 years to find a person with some authority who questioned the standard definition of “natural born”? For the record (I know you like to make sure things are accurate) Mr Long was the Third Assistant Secretary of State, and he was apparently demoted for discriminating against Jews.

    I won’t go on – hardy has already put this issue to rest.

  18. Math,
    Of course I realize that Barney Frank was being facetious. But he raised the issue of people doing their job and ensuring that elected officials have their documents checked. Even though he was joking, he raised the issue, and respect for the Rule of Law is no laughing matter. Only those who disrespect and disregard our Constitution can laugh about its requirements being ignored.

    Dave,

    Don’t vote for anyone that can’t be bothered to show us they are eligible for the job!

    Good advice, but I would go further and say that even if they win an election, they should not be sworn in until their eligiblity is proven.

    Frin,
    You have ignored several attorneys’ analyses, so I don’t really see the value of continuing to argue with you.

    Ryan,

    The fact that you care about which hospital he was born at is proof that you are not really coming at this issue with sound mind and honest intentions.

    The fact is that some (including his sister) have claimed he was born at the Queen’s Medical Center, some have claimed he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center (using a forged letter to do so), and some (including the Kenyan Ambassador and the Kenyan Parliament) have claimed that he was born in Kenya.

    Both you and I know that where he was born matters a lot. Some can argue whether or not his father’s British citizenship disqualifies him, but no one can argue that if he was born in Kenya, then he is, without a doubt, ineligible and disqualified.

    So take your bovine excrement accusations, “you are not really coming at this issue with sound mind and honest intentions”, and go away.

    My mind is sound, and my intentions are honest. I’m not sure the same can be said about you.

  19. hardy says:

    You asked: “ According to his official birth certificate, at which hospital was he born?” and “According to his official birth certificate, who was the doctor who delivered him?’

    Answer: It is a short-form birth certificate. Short-form birth certificates usually do not show those details. MANY states have adopted short form birth certificates, and they are perfectly legal, accepted by the State Department and by the branches of the military. Hawaii’s short-form birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). As you can see, Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate.

    You said: “Oh sure, the governor of Hawaii claimed:

    we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact

    But that is not a fact. That is a lie. “

    Answer: “You are right that they did not issue a press release naming the hospital. Perhaps she thought that they did issue it because that was (1) the right hospital, as she had been told; and (2) they were planning to put that in the press release but never did. But this error in memory does not mean that the governor of Hawaii, and the two officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii, and the clerk of the DoH who issued the Certification of Live Birth to Obama were all lying about Obama being born in Hawaii. They were not lying. The original birth certificate in the files says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “Dr. Fukino did not, in either of her news releases, confirm that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. I believe she can’t legally say that, becuase she has no evidence of that.”

    Answer: The original, which Hawaii does not send out anymore, says Kapi’olani, which is what Obama and his sister HAVE ALWAYS SAID. The fact that UPI got it wrong and Snopes quoted UPI, and then UPI fixed it and Snopes also fixed it, does not change the fact that Obama and his sister have always said Kapi’olani. And, there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Kapi’olani (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/posts).

    You also said: “ And finally, if Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, why did his own wife say that his “home country” is anything other than the United States?”

    Answer: Because a home country is not the place of birth. Kennedy and Reagan referred to Ireland as their Home Country.

    Someone then said “if he was born in Kenya, then he is, without a doubt, ineligible and disqualified.”

    I agree with you. But he wasn’t born in Kenya. He was born in the USA, in Hawaii, as his birth certificate shows. If my aunt had male sex organs, she would be my uncle. She’s my aunt, and Obama was not born in Kenya. The National Review had this to say about the crazy story that Obama was born in Kenya: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    And it is CRAZY. There is evidence that Obama’s mother did not have a passport at the time. There is the statement of the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu. There is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, confirmed by the officials and the governor of Hawaii. There is Obama’s Kenyan grandmother saying that he was born in Hawaii. There are no documents showing that he was born in Kenya, and if he were there would have to be A US TRAVEL document showing that he traveled from Kenya to the USA in 1961, which would have been filed and would be found by now. (By a US travel document I mean a US visa on a foreign passport or the application to add Obama to his mother’s passport while she would have been in Kenya. The applications for which would still be on file, if they were issued at all). As the National Review says, the idea that he was born in Kenya is crazy.

  20. Aaron says:

    Of course Ryan’s intentions aren’t honest. No matter how many, “You’re a racist conspiracy-nut,” lines he types, the overall goal of most of these posts on this site are to push the far left–and in many cases, anti-American–politics of his countries (he isn’t American) onto our country and demonize anyone who holds views to the right of his far left stance.

    Foreigners complain about Americans talking about the affairs of their countries and yet turn out to be the hypocrites by constantly wanting to stick their nose in US affairs. You don’t see any threads about Canada’s politics here, do you Ryan?

  21. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows

    According to his official birth certificate, at which hospital was he born?

    According to his official birth certificate, who was the doctor who delivered him?

    You claimed “as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows”. My point is that we don’t know what “his official birth certificate” says because “his official birth certificate” has not been released. “His official birth certificate” would answer the two questions I ask. “His official birth certificate” would indicate the hospital where he was born and include the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.

    What has been released is not “his official birth certificate”. It’s not even his Certification Of Live Birth (a.k.a COLB). What has been released is a URL to a web page with some .jpg images on it. No member of Congress has claimed that they have personally inspected a hard copy of his COLB, let alone “his official birth certificate”.

    It is their sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution, including the 20th Amendment. It is their Constitutional duty to ensure the President-elect has qualified to hold the office. They can’t outsource that responsibility to FactCheck.org.

  22. You don’t see any threads about Canada’s politics here, do you Ryan?

    Good point, Aaron!

    :-)

  23. hardy says:

    You asked: “ According to his official birth certificate, at which hospital was he born?’

    Answer: “As noted before, that is not shown on short-form birth certificates. Hawaii issues only short-form birth certificates, and has done so since 2001. That is Hawaii’s decision, not Obama’s. The fact that Hawaii does not release long-form birth certificates to anyone does not change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the document shows, and as confirmed by the officials.

    You asked: According to his official birth certificate, who was the doctor who delivered him?

    Answer: “As noted before, that is not shown on short-form birth certificates. Hawaii issues only short-form birth certificates, and has done so since 2001. That is Hawaii’s decision, not Obama’s. The fact that Hawaii does not release long-form birth certificates to anyone does not change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the document shows, and as confirmed by the officials.

    You asserted; “My point is that we don’t know what “his official birth certificate” says because “his official birth certificate” has not been released. “His official birth certificate” would answer the two questions I ask. “His official birth certificate” would indicate the hospital where he was born and include the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.”

    Answer: No, the official birth certificate is the one that Hawaii currently issues, and which is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the military. The original birth certificate is also an official document, but it is no longer being sent out. That is Hawaii’s decision, and it has been Hawaii’s decision in every case since 2001. The fact that Hawaii does not send out the original does not affect the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “we don’t know what “his official birth certificate” says”

    Answer: ALL birth certificates, long-form and short-form, are copies of the originals in the file. Some are photographic copies. Others are copies of the facts on the document. In the case of short-form birth certificates, the procedure is that a clerk looks at the original and then types in the facts on a computer form which then is printed out on a laser printer. In Obama’s case, a total of at least three people saw the original, the clerk, and the head of the DoH and the head of the Department of Vital Records. They all said that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    They did not say on the record which hospital Obama was born at, but they may have told the governor on the telephone. In any case, it really does not matter what hospital he was born at. What hospital was Bush or Clinton born at? It matters that he was born in Hawaii, which he was.

    Not only is there the birth certificate and the confirmation, but there is the witness who was told of the birth and the Kenyan grandmother who said that he was born in Hawaii, and the evidence that Obama’s mother did not have a passport in 1961 and the absence of Kenyan records (except forged ones) and the absence of US travel records.

    You said: “What has been released is a URL to a web page with some .jpg images on it. “

    Answer: Obama showed the physical copy of the COLB to both FactCheck and Politifact (a subsidiary of the St. Petersburg times of Florida). FactCheck put online an excellent photographic display of the document, front and back. The chance that FacgtCheck could forge such a detailed document is nil. The only way for the public to see the document was to put it on line, but in addition to the online copy, there are physical copies. And, since the officials in Hawaii have said that the facts on the published copy are accurate, if there weren’t physical copies, Hawaii could simply send out another COLB.

    You said: “No member of Congress has claimed that they have personally inspected a hard copy of his COLB, let alone “his official birth certificate”.”

    Answer: Members of Congress have never inspected the birth certificates of presidential candidates. It is not their job. No member of Congress claimed to have inspected McCain’s birth certificate either, or Bush’s.

    You said; “It is their sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution, including the 20th Amendment. It is their Constitutional duty to ensure the President-elect has qualified to hold the office. They can’t outsource that responsibility to FactCheck.org.’

    Answer: In principle, I agree with you. Every member of Congress (all 535 of them) should inspect every official birth certificate of every presidential candidate or at least the final two in the November election.

    However, my desire that they do this, and your desire that they do this does not mean that there is a law that says that they must do it. And, sad to say, it looks like ALL the members of Congress have NOT been doing this since the very first presidential election. Not one president’s birth certificate was inspected by one member of Congress ever. Why not? Are they lazy and sloppy? Well, yes they are, but that is the situation. You can complain to your member of Congress and ask her or him to ask to inspect the document or to start inspecting in the future, or both, but little is likely to change.

    By the way, the bill that calls for future presidential candidates to show their birth certificates to the Federal Election Commission refers to the official birth certificate, not the original, and so Obama could meet that obligation easily. Of course, that calls for showing the physical document, but Obama really does have the physical document, as his showing it to FactCheck and Politifact proves. And, if he didn’t have it, Hawaii would simply issue him another.

    Finally, without a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii, what are you blowing smoke about?

  24. Ryan says:

    You don’t see any threads about Canada’s politics here, do you Ryan?

    I’m truly sorry about that. I did not know you were interested, and I try not to make a habit of hacking into someone’s WordPress account to add my own threads. Feel free to start one, and I assure you I’ll comment. Our federal government is a bit of a disaster.

    The reason I care about US politics is that, if you haven’t noticed, our two countries are incredibly dependent on each other, and the policies of the US have an impact on Canada in numerous ways.

    We’ve lost soldiers in your wars, we help defend your borders, and we alter our drug enforcement policies so that they do not conflict with yours. You’re welcome.

    And Mr. Pill, what do you actually think that Obama’s original birth certificate says that would disqualify him, and how do you think the the state of Hawaii intends to keep that under wraps forever, considering that new people will get to see those records every few years?

  25. Not only is there the birth certificate and the confirmation, but there is the witness who was told of the birth and the Kenyan grandmother who said that he was born in Hawaii, and the evidence that Obama’s mother did not have a passport in 1961 and the absence of Kenyan records (except forged ones) and the absence of US travel records.

    His Grandmother said she was present at his birth in Kenya. I know, her handlers immediately “corrected” her and said, “In America! In America!” And then the Kenyan government forbid her to talk to anyone else. If you want to talk about “the absence of US travel records”, how about producing any shred of evidence that said grandmother travelled to the U.S. to be present at his birth in Hawaii?

    There is no debate about the fact that she said she was present at his birth. I highly doubt that she travelled to the U.S. Besides, it appears that most people in Kenya firmly believe that he was born there, and the media had no problem talking about “Kenyan-born Obama” back in 2004 when he was running for U.S. Senate.

    Finally, without a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii, what are you blowing smoke about?

    You like to pretend that there is not “a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii”, yet you choose to ignore multiple indications, from multiple sources, that all point to Obama being born on Kenyan soil.

    “Son of This Soil”

    Member of Kenyan parliament, Birther.

    The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya
    will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.

    Note well how no subsequent speaker questioned or contradicted the assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

    The Kenyan Parliament scrubbed that PDF, but not before I archived it here.

    Keep on believing the myth that there is not “a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii”.

    There’s not a shred of evidence that Obama was born at the hospital he claims as his birthplace.

  26. Our [Canadian] federal government is a bit of a disaster.

    Now, there’s something about which I can agree with you, Ryan!

    And Mr. Pill, what do you actually think that Obama’s original birth certificate says that would disqualify him, and how do you think the the state of Hawaii intends to keep that under wraps forever, considering that new people will get to see those records every few years?

    I believe that Obama’s birth was reported to the state of Hawaii by one of his grandparents, not by any hospital in Hawaii. I believe that this reported birth is what triggered the newspaper announcements, but that this report was “filed by registrar”, not “accepted by registrar”, because it lacked third-party witnesses… until almost 48 years later when the U.S. House of Representatives provided that third-party “verification” of Obama’s birth… even though none of them were actual witnesses of the birth.

    I believe that as part of the divorce records of Barack and Stanley Ann, a copy of Obama’s original birth record is on file in Hawaii, so Dr. Fukino’s October 31, 2008 statement was technically accurate.

    I believe that the COLB that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago is a forgery, and that the FactCheck.org representatives are not document experts. The COLB is “good enough” to look real, but if it were genuine then it would have been very simple for Obama to authorize the release of said COLB directly from the State of Hawaii.

    I believe that H. RES. 593 was used to provide “evidence” or “witnesses” of the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”, and that the passage of H. RES. 593 led directly to Dr. Fukino’s second news release mere hours after the vote on H. RES. 593. What do you think triggered Dr. Fukino’s second news release?

    I believe that Governor Lingle is a “useful idiot”, who has been misled to believe that Dr. Fukino’s statements somehow said things that they never actually said. But, like so many other politicians, she hasn’t taken the time to actually read what was said (and not said) in those two one-page releases.

    As to “considering that new people will get to see those records every few years”, do you know who the Democrat is that wants to be the next Governor? None other than Neil Abercrombie, whom I showed earlier is knee-deep in this crap himself, having read a forged letter as part of a fundraiser, which in itself is a violation of the law. The HTML version of the “Letter from President Obama” is pure B.S. … there would be absolutely NO reason to create this HTML version if a real letter had existed first. They would have simply shown an image of the real letter, not created a letter from scratch with HTML and a link to an image of Barack’s signature in a .jpg file on the White House web site. The hard copy letter only came later, just like the hard copy COLB only came later, after the online version was questioned.

    The whole thing smells. And it’s more than just a little bit “fishy”, if you understand the reference.

  27. ladysforest says:

    Hi Redpill,

    I wanted to let you know that I finally posted my research piece on the obama newspaper birth announcements. It’s quite different from any that has been posted to date, so please take a look.

    And Ryan, Math, similar ilk, it is a RESEARCH piece, not an opinion piece. You are welcome to comment, however know that comments are still moderated.

    I do want to change the PDFs to images as that would be a bit easier to view…I’ll be working on it over the next couple of days. It’s still in progress.

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/

    Redpill, after reading comments, I must say that you have the patience of a saint. Rebel On.

  28. ladysforest,
    Thank you for your kind words. I’ll head on over and read what you’ve written.

    One thought that I wanted to add to my previous comment is this:

    In the political reality of Democrats who very carefully parse words (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”) we must realize exactly what the Hawaiian officials did and did not say.

    They never said the COLB is authentic. They never said the hospital where Obama was born. They only said, “Obama was born in Hawaii” after the House of Representatives said so, giving them legal cover if necessary.

  29. ladysforest says:

    Yes, Redpill, exactly.

  30. ladysforest,
    I just did a very high-level overview of your post. It’s getting late, so I didn’t drill down into the various links, but I did take note of this:

    The ONE and ONLY time that the two papers published the birth list, beginning at the first announcement, in order, was in the editions that obama’s birth announcement appeared.

    That is certainly interesting! It certainly begs the question of “Why?”, doesn’t it?

  31. ladysforest says:

    Yep. When you are rested, take a good read. I do need to convert those PDFs, sigh. Anyway, the info about page 23 is also pretty interesting and another strange “coincidence”. The condition of the papers from each location, especially from those where the announcements were “first” discovered, is particularly interesting and unusual.

  32. Ryan says:

    ladysforest, your research is not research. Research is when you collect and examine evidence to further your knowledge, regardless of where it leads you. What you are doing is searching for anything that sheds doubt on an already established fact. You are looking desperately for any tiny thing that might keep a flame of hope in your mind that Obama was born somewhere else. That is bias, and it disqualifies you from conducting research.

    In addition to that, the things you have come up with are hilarious. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to forge microfiche copies of a newspaper? You are accusing some federal agency, at the time, under control of Bush, of committing treason for Obama. If there is a federal agency willing to commit treason, don’t you think they would just forge a long form birth certificate, and put it on display somewhere?

    And one more thing Mr. Pill. You need to give up the idea that Fukino is somehow “covered” if she is lying. She said in no uncertain terms that the information on Obama’s released document matched the official, original records, and that those records show that Obama was born in Hawaii. She has seen the documents, or she is lying about seeing the documents. If she saw them, and issued a statement that contradicts them, then she has lied, regardless of anything else released by any government body. A repeated lie is still a lie if the person speaking is aware of the truth. I’m sure you know that.

  33. She said in no uncertain terms that the information on Obama’s released document matched the official, original records, and that those records show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    No, she did not. Provide a link to where Dr. Fukino talked about “the information on Obama’s released document”. Quote where she said, in no uncertain terms, that the original records show “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski.” And “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” (By the way, this is funny.)

    You can’t take two different statements and create your own meaning. Her first statement mentioned the original documents, but did not mention where he was born. Her second statement regurgitated what the U.S. House said about where he was born, but did not mention the original document. You pretend that she said the original document said he was born in Hawaii, but she never said that. And you know it.

    By the way, her first statement mentioned the original documents … why plural? Is it because the original was amended?

  34. ladysforest says:

    Actually Ryan, I did the research regardless of what I would find. I didn’t expect to find anything, but as non-research fools sit around insulting people that were doing slight work and jumping to conclusions, I thought it was time to actually look into this. So, bias aside, I cannot create the things that turned up. Should they be ignored because they are unusual? No. Regardless of any personal position on this, this “stuff” is in print, on film, for anyone in the world to look at. I do not alter or manipulate the data, and for the most part my observations are not my opinions.

    In fact, research has been done into the making of copies of microfilm. Not a difficult or lengthy process at all. How do you think the various locations were given copies? They were COPIED. Bias would only impact research if one altered the facts to present a result. I have not. This is perfectly obvious. The most ardent obama fan would find the same exact data from the same exact sources, those available to every person in the entire world.

    And if you would PLEASE point out to me where I make a single accusation? No such thing was done at any point.

    And I believe that it is apparent that I DID COLLECT THE MATERIAL, and I DID EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. That is what a person who researches does. Have you done any research to dispute my findings? I invite you to do so. Once you have you will be better positioned to debate intelligently.

  35. skeeter says:

    Even ranking members of Obama’s own party admitted John McCain was a “natural born citizen” *”because”*, as they have said,”John McCain is the son of two American Parents”. Obama is the son of one American parent and one Kenyan (foriegn) parent and the stepson of an Indonesian (foriegn) parent. Obama has at least two fathers who are not American, were not American, and never will be American. The most Obama could legally hope to make of his citizenship is that of an “anchor baby” and have anchor babie’s rights. Indeed he may have forfieted the anchor baby rights -IF- and when he enrolled as a foriegn exchange student at an American college, unless, he is the son of the American Frank Marshal Davis in which case Obama would still be a fraud having comitted criminal acts.

    The democrats have gone out of their way to prove the elligibility of their opponent but can’t seem to find proof of elligibility for the one they call president. Almost $2,000,000 in legal fees to hide his origin vouches for who Obama isn’t.

  36. Ryan says:

    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    See saw the documents. See says they show he was born in Hawaii. That is the only thing that is relevant, and that matches what he released. If there was a discrepancy between the records she saw, and the records Obama has released, it would be her duty to point that out, and turn the evidence over to the Attorney General for prosecution. There’s no way around that for her. Is she lying? Maybe she is – but if she is, she will be found out, and she will pay for it, as will all the other people complicit in the matter, if you are correct.

    Ladysforest, I didn’t say it was difficult to copy microfiche. That part is easy. You are implying that they are forged, and that is quite an achievement. Virtually all newspaper printers keep original copies of every single issue right off the press (usually the first 5 copies) and store them. Those would also need to be covered up I guess.

    I bet you watch a lot of Glenn Beck. You are using his “I’m just asking questions” defense. You are intentionally leading your reader to the conclusion that the records have been forged. It’s cowardly.

    Skeeter, parents do not have anything to do with citizenship when a person is born in the country. McCain’s parents were relevant because he was born abroad. Look it up.

    Almost $2,000,000 in legal fees to hide his origin vouches for who Obama isn’t.

    There’s no evidence of this, which is odd, since court cases are public. The number keeps going up every time I hear it mentioned.

  37. Note the plural on the word “records“. In a world of parsed statements and government officials who want you to just trust them, this is significant.

    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. From October 31, 2008 to July 26, 2009, Dr. Fukino was not willing to say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”. Late on July 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino was finally willing to say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    What changed? What led to Dr. Fukino issuing a second statement?

    It a statement of fact that mere hours before Fukino’s 2nd statement was released, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of H. Res. 593, which included the following:

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

    Is the timing of Dr. Fukino’s 2nd news release mere coincidence? I think not. Was H. Res. 593 one of the “records” used to make Fukino’s statement? She won’t say. Fukino’s office did admit that she used an opinion from the Attorney General in order to make her statement. By law, when a legal opinion is used to make a public statement, then the legal opinion itself must also be made public. But they refuse to do so. For all the “HOPE” for “CHANGE” and “the most transparent administration in history”, both Obama and Dr. Fukino continue to stonewall…

  38. She said in no uncertain terms that the information on Obama’s released document matched the official, original records, and that those records show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    No, she did not. Provide a link to where Dr. Fukino talked about “the information on Obama’s released document”.

    You replied with:

    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    That makes no mention of “the information on Obama’s released document”. She never claimed that the COLB produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters was authentic, or that all of the information on it matched what they have on record from 1961. The original documents matter. For the sake of argument, if the original documents listed no father, or a U.S. citizen father, then everything Fukino has said would be legally accurate, yet Obama would still be guilty of fraud.

    Transparency matters. Obama promised transparency. Now we have multiple examples of stonewalling.

  39. skeeter says:

    McCain was born abroad on American Soil as per international law governing foriegn embassies, military bases, and ETC. Obama is an “anchor baby” or was his mother an anchor mother? Obama’s wife says her husband’s “home country” is Kenya. Surely the wife knows what nation her husband was born in, else she doesn’t know who or what she is married to. Obama was an anchor baby for Barack Hussein Obama Sr., if Obama Sr. was his father and if Obama junior was born in Hawaii. Then there is that other thug (other than F.M Davis), Malcom X, maybe Obama is an American citizen after all. Take your pick.

  40. skeeter,

    McCain was not born on a military base. The hospital at Coco Solo Naval Air Station was not built until several years after McCain was born. While McCain’s Certificate of Birth says “The Panama Canal Health Department”, it shows that McCain was born at Colón Hospital in the city of Colón, Republic of Panama (R. P.). The city of Colón was not in the Panama Canal Zone and was not U.S. soil.

    McCain was born a citizen of the United States, becuase of his parents, but he was not born a natural born citizen, because of his birth location.

  41. In addition, Róger Calero, Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States, was born in Nicaragua.

    In several states, there were three different Presidential candidates on the ballot who were not eligible to hold the office because they are not natural born citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court should have heard this case.

  42. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill,

    When a person refers to records, they are taing about a source of data. One record would be the person’s first name. Another record is a person’s last name. Another record is a person’s birth year, and birth month, and birth day, and the time of birth, and the place of birth, and the name of the mother etc.

    Those are records. A particular group of records, all typed or written nicely on a piece of paper, or entered into a database, makes up a birth certificate.

    If you want me to go into set theory or data models to tell you why the word “records” is usually plural, I will, but I should not have to.

    As for McCain being born outside of a military base, yes he was, but only because it would not have been safe for a baby to be delivered on a base with no hospital. If it is your opinion that good American families serving in the military on foreign soil should need to risk the life of their child to maintain natural born citizen status, then I would suggest that you do not “support our troops”.

    Skeeter, please go away if you’re going to repeat things that have been completely proven wrong on this very page by several people. A person’s “home country” can also be related to ancestry. Also, how is Obama an anchor baby for his father? He was married to an American citizen, and could have applied for citizenship on those grounds.

  43. Ryan,

    Dr. Fukino’s first statement used “record” in the singular.

    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.

    the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record

    Almost nine months later, but mere hours after the vote on H. RES. 593 in the U.S. House, Dr. Fukino’s second statement, used “records” in the plural.

    I … 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.

    Got that? In October she called the original birth certificate a “vital record” (singular) and did NOT say “Obama was born in Hawai‘i”. She had months on end when she could have claimed, “Obama was born in Hawai‘i”, but she didn’t. But within hours of H. RES. 593, she rushes out to say, “vital records” (plural) and “Obama was born in Hawai‘i”. How about a little transparency regarding the vital records used to make that statement? And what gives her the right to determine what the legal definition of “natural born citizen” is, and claim that Obama is one? How about a little transparency regarding the Attorney General’s opinion on this matter?

    Obama committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history. Not just open and transparent, but the most open and transparent in history!

    Yet he refuses to be open and transparent and release his original birth certificate directly from the state of Hawaii. He refuses to be open and transparent about whether his administration even has any legitimacy. If Obama were a man of his word, he would be open and transparent. Instead, he has been anything but open and transparent.

    If it is your opinion that good American families serving in the military on foreign soil should need to risk the life of their child to maintain natural born citizen status, then I would suggest that you do not “support our troops”.

    John McCain’s mother had many months to plan for the birth of her child. If she had wanted him to be a “natural born citizen” she could have travelled back to the United States after she found out she was pregnant, and delivered her child safely in the United States. Your accusation of not “supporting our troops” is B.S. and offensive, especially from a foreigner, especially on Memorial Day weekend.

    You ask Skeeter to go away, yet three days ago I asked you to go away, and you ignored that request. I’d appreciate it if you honored my request..

  44. Ryan says:

    Both those instants use “record” correctly in its singular form. The first because requests for information must be made referring to each individual record.

    The second example is a completely different use of the word (one does not say “on records”). You obviously searched for the singular form.

    Do you really think that careful use of words will save Fukino from the lie you think she has perpetrated?

    The fact that you would take somebodies citizenship away because his patriotic American parents wanted to stay on duty and serve their country demonstrates that you are more concerned with the rule of law as you see it than supporting our troops with simple common sense.

  45. hardy says:

    Pill said: “His Grandmother said she was present at his birth in Kenya. I know, her handlers immediately “corrected” her and said, “In America! In America!”

    No, she NEVER said that he was born in Kenya or that she was present. All that she said was “Yes” to a question that was in English but we do NOT know what it meant in the African language that she actually heard. She was asked was she present when (not where) Obama was born. Since it does not say where, it could mean even in English that she was present in the world when Obama was born. Or, it could mean that she was present in Kenya when she was born in Hawaii. That being the case, and since all that she said was YES, the questioner asked another question, the obvious question, was “Obama born in Mobassa?”. And the answer right away was no. NO, he was born in Hawaii, where Obama’s father was studying at the time.

    That is her answer, not the Yes, to the question we do not know the meaning of in the African language. For example, if the English question was “was she present when Obama was born in Kenya?” then all that had to happen was that the translator said in the African language: “Was she present in Kenya when Obama was born?” And the YES answer to that certainly does not mean that he was born in Kenya.

    In any case, she said in another interview that the first that the family knew of Obama’s birth was a letter to the family received some months after the birth, and other members of the family have said in interviews that the first visit of Obama to Kenya was in the 1980s.

    The idea that Obama’s mother went to Kenya when she was pregnant is truly crazy. It was (1) a terribly expensive and difficult trip. No direct flights, poorly pressurized planes; and (2) it was dangerous. There were plenty of stillbirths in those days. Airlines often did not allow women to travel when they were visibly pregnant, and there was YELLOW FEVER in Kenya; and (3) There is reasonable evidence that Obama’s mother did not have a passport in 1961 (Obama’s first book says that she and he applied for passports in 1966 or 1967 when they were about to go to Indonesia).

    In the extremely unlikely event that Obama’s mother went to Kenya and gave birth there, there is no reason to believe that she would have lied about it. Why should she? It would have been an interesting experience to tell people about. But according to the myth she did. According to the myth, she would have had to have gone to Kenya while pregnant (paying all that money and incurring the risk) and then somehow got the child back to Hawaii and registered him as born in Hawaii.

    However, there is a missing element here. IF A CHILD were born in Kenya, there would have to be proof that the child was born in Kenya IN THE US GOVERNMENT FILES, and there isn’t any.

    After all, how can you get a child from Kenya into the USA? These things require documents, and in this case it would have had to have been a US visa on a foreign passport or a US passport issued in Kenya for Obama or the change to his mother’s passport to include Obama while she was in Kenya (actually, while she was in Mombassa, which wasn’t part of Kenya at the time).

    The myth holds that such documents were all scrubbed from US files by members of the conspiracy, and the Kenyan government is part of the conspiracy because it does not show its records of Obama’s mother arriving in Kenya and of the birth in Kenya, and the officials in Hawaii are all part of the conspiracy because of their statements.

    (It would, by the way, be virtually impossible to scrub such documents from US government files because there are multiple copies of the documents themselves and of the applications for them.)

    Also, frankly, this is far too big and too successful an alleged conspiracy to be believed.

    If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a Kenyan official document (not an obviously forged one provided by a previously convicted felon who never proved even that he went to Kenya), and there would be US travel documents showing that Obama had received a visa or a passport in Kenya, and the officials in Hawaii not have allowed his birth to be registered in Hawaii. (In 1961 only children born in Hawaii could be registered in Hawaii. Hawaii simply did not register the births of anyone outside of Hawaii at that time).

    Yet we know there is no proof of Obama being born outside of Hawaii, and the official document (confirmed by the statement of at least one witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii) shows that he was born in Hawaii. The official statement of Fukino (the second of the two) says that the original document (the first confirmation said that it was the original birth certificate) “verifies” that Obama was born in Hawaii. “Verifies” means that previous information is confirmed and proven. The previous information was on the Certification of Live Birth that Obama published in 2007.

    As the Wall Street Journal put it:

    “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    And the National Review has called the myth that Obama was born in Kenya “crazy.”

  46. skeeter says:

    Thank you for the clarification (colon hospital).

    NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

    By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905)

    As a wide-spread interest attaches to the discussion of the meaning and scope of the constitutional provision in respect to eligibility for the office of president of the United States, I submit some views in this relation which may be opportune.

    The question is often asked: Are children of citizens of the United States born at sea or in foreign territory, other than the offspring of American ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary, natural-born citizens of the United States, within the purview of the constitutional provision? After some consideration of the history of the times, of the relation of the provision to the subject-matter and of the acts of congress relating to citizenship, it seems clear to the undersigned that such persons are natural-born, that is, citizens by origin; and that, if otherwise qualified, they are eligible to the office of president. In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of ius sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason, or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

    The earliest act of congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (March 26, 1790) contained the following clause: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born at sea or out of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” The draft of this act has been credited to Mr. Jefferson, although his authorship has been questioned; and his reputed relationship to it may be ascribed to the fact that he was the author of the original naturalization acts in the Constitution of Virginia, and was an ardent supporter of a wise system of naturalization laws before and after he became President. But whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statutes of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared the opinion that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory; but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural—the result of parentage—and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. The second act of naturalization (January 29, 1795), which was reported and probably drawn by Mr. Madison, chairman of a select House committee, enacted “That the children of persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As carried forward in the Revised Statutes, the provision reads: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” This provision, as its terms express, is declaratory; it is not the statute that constitutes children of American parentage citizens; it is the fact of American descent, the jus sanguinis, that makes them citizens at the moment of birth—a fact which, for sufficient and convenient reasons, the legislative power of the State recognizes and announces to the world.

    If there was ambiguity, the rights and privileges of children of American parents dependent upon constitutional guarantee would demand recognition; and constitutional guaranties in favor of such persons might not be restricted or denied by congress.

    To return to the constitutional requirement in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office, upon considerations which naturally had much weight at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. Where it was said in the old books that an alien is one born out of the king’s or State’s dominions or allegiance, this must be of the limits understood with some restrictions. A forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrase under consideration would be out of harmony with ‘modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results. It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution. And it would be a strange conclusion, in another aspect, if the child of American parents, born in China, should be denied correspondent rights and privileges in the United States.

    A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

    Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.

    WASHINGTON, D.C., March, 19o4

  47. Miri says:

    Mr. Ryan wrote, “When a person refers to records, they are taing (sic) about a source of data. One record would be the person’s first name. Another record is a person’s last name. Another record is a person’s birth year, and birth month, and birth day, and the time of birth, and the place of birth, and the name of the mother etc.

    Those are records. A particular group of records, all typed or written nicely on a piece of paper, or entered into a database, makes up a birth certificate.

    If you want me to go into set theory or data models to tell you why the word “records” is usually plural, I will, but I should not have to.”

    Mr. Ryan, a first name is a data element of a record in a database. It is ludicrous to suggest that Dr. Fukino would consider Obama’s name to be four records, first, middle, last, suffix.

    Not impressed that you know “set theory”, Mr. Ryan; and no, you don’t have to and should not (please don’t) expound upon it. It’s a misapplication and, therefore, irrelevant. Apples and Oranges.

    If you want me to go into relational database theory, sorry, I won’t. You can do your own research and I should not have to because you ought to already know, given that you seem to assume that you’re smarter than the rest of us.

    Hint: A first name is not a “record”. Why not? Short answer, no key.

  48. Ryan says:

    Yeah, research on relation DBs is not necessary, but thanks, I’m quite well versed in that. I do not claim to be smarter than anyone here, but it seems I do have a bit more common sense.

    Fukino wasn’t thinking about whether or not to use “record” or “records”. As with pretty much everything we say, we word things the way we are used to wording things. I was just pointing out why we say records instead of record sometimes, and why it doesn’t imply multiple pieces of paper.

    One minute you guys are saying that Fukino uses her words extremely carefully in order to avoid lying on a technicality, and then in another thread, one of you says she screwed up and used the wrong word, which proves a conspiracy.

    I’m astounded that people capable of using a computer are able to type such drivel.

  49. Ryan,

    I do not claim to be smarter than anyone here, but it seems I do have a bit more common sense.

    A case study in self-contradiction.

    I’m astounded that people capable of using a computer are able to type such drivel.

    I’ll kindly ask you once again to take your drivel and your “bit more common sense” and please leave.

  50. ladysforest says:

    Hi Redpill,

    I believe I have things tweaked on my research so that it presents better. I’d welcome your input. LOL-I’m not a “bullet-point” kind of gal by nature.

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