Eligibility Update: Donofrio on DoS Citizenship, Keyes v. Obama Hearing Set, Open Letter by Former P&G VP
Attorney Leo Donofrio recently wrote about how the Obama Administration’s State Department continues to maintain that natural born citizenship as a means of determining presidential eligibility “has never been definitively determined by a court:”
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
The State Department is part of the Executive Branch. The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see URL). Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents.
Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.
[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Furthermore, 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.
And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record. He stated:
My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.
The magic question is:
Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?…
What was their logic? The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen. I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.
However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.
Why does it require two citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents? This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators. Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern. What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.
Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son. These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.
To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?
WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?
What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question? This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511. Get a quote on the record answering this question.
I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.
Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents. It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.
But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.
Again, that section states:
“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”
Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?
What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?
Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”. This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly. In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship. Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.
In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”. This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US. Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.
I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511, but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
WorldNetDaily reports that Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Keyes v. Obama, has had a hearing set for July 13 by US District Judge David Carter:
The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”
Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation.
“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.
The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.
“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.
“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.
“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.
“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”
The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”
The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.
“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.
Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.
Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.
She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.
“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.
“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”
She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.
“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?
“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.
“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”
Attorney Mario Apuzzo received the following letter from Lou Pritchett, former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble:
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou PritchettDear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking The Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated “open letter.” “I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the Internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10… [...]
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10… [...]
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10… [...]
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10… [...]
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10… [...]
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10… [...]
AS A VETERAN OF WW2, I HAVE SERVED MY COUNTRY AND TOOK OATH OF ENLISTMENT ON CONSTITUTION. THE PERSON IN WHITE HOUSE HAS NEVER SERVED OUR COUNTRY, HE IS AN ACORN GRADUATE AND ONLY KNOWS HOW TO ORGANIZE COMMUNITIES, TO TAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD AND GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO WORK. AS YOU MEN ARE VERY QUARRELSOME, I WILL QUIT AND LET YOU ARGUE. OTHER SITES ACCEPT MY POSTS WITHOUT A LOT OF QUARRELING, LIKE A BUNCH OF TEENAGERS, THE TYPE THAT ELECTED HIM, BECAUSE HE IS BLACK LIKE WE ARE, I SAW THIS O TV, AND I JUST WONDER HOW MANY ACORN PHONY VOTES WERE CAST???????????????????
brygenon,
I am well-aware of what the alleged certification of live birth claims. This still does not disprove the point that the Hawaiian Department of Health has never offiicially claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.
Leading conclusion. I have only ever stated that I have a question regarding the origins of the alleged certification of live birth.
We assume that the alleged certification of live birth originates from the Hawaiian Department of Health. In lieu of a transaction that supports the date stamp of the certification, we can only speculate as to the document’s origin.
Further, the only thing that the Hawaiian Department of Health confirmed is that a birth certificate exists for Mr. Obama. They have never made any official, direct comments concerning the alleged certification of live birth; any such comments have been derived from a discussion concerning the Department’s commentary on the actual birth certificate and/or sites such as FactCheck.org.
-Phil
Phil says:
Check out the place of birth: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg and the stamped attestation: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
That’s not how state records are proven. See 28 USC 1739 and the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.
They did their job and provided a legal state record that proves Barack H. Obama II was born in the U.S. over 35 years ago.
brygenon,
I readily admit that the folks at FactCheck.org have drawn numerous unsubstantiated conclusions:
1. The Hawaiian Department of Health never claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (they only confirm that there is a birth certificate on file);
2. There is currently no public record of who procured Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth from the Hawaiian Department of Health;
3. The Hawaiian Department of Health never claimed that any document substantiates Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.
-Phil
brygenon,
But it gets even worse for all Americans:
1. There is no law on the books that enforces presidential eligibility;
2. There is no definitive definition issued by any Court that defines what it means to be a natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility;
3. The Hawaiian Department of Health has never claimed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii (they’ve merely stated that they have a birth certificate on file);
4. Mr. Obama is documented to have been a British citizen at birth.
-Phil
[...] The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 20… [...]
earl,
Considering that even the State Department confirms that there is no definitive definition of natural born citizenship with respect to presidential eligibility, I find your claim moot.
The bill is not about “narrow[ing]” the presidential eligibility clause. Rather, it is about enforcing the clause. Please understand: 10,000 laws on the books mean absolutely nothing if they are not enforced.
-Phil
Phil wrote:
But she couldn’t draw a conclusion from the scanned image. Annenberg Political Fact-Check inspected and photographed the actual document:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
C.N. natus says:
But it’s great for debunking you here on the net.
Reality is that birthers have a perfect record in court — 100% failure; zero for dozens.
Phil says:
July 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm
” Therefore, what’s left is legal banterings in the court of public opinion.”
What’s left for birthers to accept is that to the people who control the election process i.e. the 50 states, DC and the 6 territories, the DNC, the RNC, the FEC, the Electoral College, the entire Congress and most American voters there is no doubt what is the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
As far as they are concerned, and you see this reflected even in the proposed HR, a natural born citizen is someone born in the US and/or born a US citizen. Why do you want this definition to be narrowed?
You Say:
dunstvangeet says:
July 1, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Courts have declared dual-citizenship individuals to be “Natural-Born Citizens”. Read the majority opinion on Perkins v. Elg. That proves that someone who had at one point Dual Citizenship is declared to be Natural-Born Citizens. It includes a line that the court affirmed the lower court that declared Elg to be a “Natural-born Citizen”.
It completely invalidates your little theory by stating that U.S. Citizenship law operates completely independantly of any other national law. It declares someone who at one point had Sweedish and American Citizenship to have never lost their citizenship, and be a Natuarl-Born Citizen of the United States.
—————————————————————
You are absolutely wrong in your accessment (obfuscation). Perkins v. Elg held that a person could not lose Natural Born Citizenship status by the actions of his guardians during minority. What you cannot get through your head (or refuse to) is that NBC status is conferred at BIRTH. The Elg case actually upheld Natural Law (Vattel) in that it held that the Naturalization laws and treaties between foreign powers should definitely be considered in citizenship questions, including military enlistment requirements.
dunstvangeet,
While you have every right to your opinion on legal matters pertaining to eligibility, the truth of the matter is that — as I’ve recently documented — a thorough definition of natural born citizenship with respect to presidential eligibility has never been defined in the Judiciary. Therefore, what’s left is legal banterings in the court of public opinion.
-Phil
Vincet Omnia Veritas,
Thanks for the info. I’m going to use this as a part of an upcoming posting. While it is creative and better than name-calling, it would be even more wonderful if the same person(s) who put this together demanded the same from the President.
-Phil
Courts have declared dual-citizenship individuals to be “Natural-Born Citizens”. Read the majority opinion on Perkins v. Elg. That proves that someone who had at one point Dual Citizenship is declared to be Natural-Born Citizens. It includes a line that the court affirmed the lower court that declared Elg to be a “Natural-born Citizen”.
It completely invalidates your little theory by stating that U.S. Citizenship law operates completely independantly of any other national law. It declares someone who at one point had Sweedish and American Citizenship to have never lost their citizenship, and be a Natuarl-Born Citizen of the United States.
The State of Hawaii’s Health Department has declared the COLB to be a “valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” That is a simple fact that birthers just cannot get around.
And Civis naturaliter natus, the quote was actually the St. Petersburg Times and Politico quoting the spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health, who declared it to be “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” So, the state of Hawaii has declared the COLB to be “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” What more can they do to satisfy you?
dunstvangeet says:
June 30, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Speaking of Orly Taitz…
A group of concerned, patriotic citizens have concerns about Orly Taitz background and are asking why she has advocated the overthrow of the duly elected leader of the United States by force. They have assembled a list of documents that she ought to gladly produce to demonstrate that she who she says she is and not an agent provocateur working for Israel or another unknown entity through AIPAC.
Dr. Taitz has continued to refuse to let anyone view these documents.
The list of documents is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16215337/Orly-Demands-Document?secret_password=24jjxguw2neofahhdljl
dunstvangeet,
The bottom line is that no Court has ever thoroughly defined what a natural born citizen is for the purposes of presidential eligibility. To date, all is speculative opinion.
-Phil
earl,
Yes, I do, because nobody is allowed to actually view that private information outside the confines of applicable State and federal law.
Simply put, because Mr. Obama was born a British citizen. That alone is reason enough to question his eligibility.
-Phil
No further “Proof” is necessary. It is simply a legal question. Obama has already admitted that he is a “Native citizen” (The fact that a “Constitutional Attorney” uses the wrong term, when he knowa the correct term is Natural Born citizen, shows he is simply trying not to outright lie). He also admits that his citizenship status was governed by the BNA 1949, Dual Loyalties at birth would prevent Obama from being natural born, as his essence and genes would not naturally be American. The silly strawman ridiculous argument presented by ‘Historian Dude” (typical Obama shill), that a country could pass a law making all US Citizens Mexican (for example) could never fly, because they can only pass naturalization laws that effect their own citizens (silly!). Perkins v. Elg (1929, 32 years after the Sham of Wong Kim Ark), which also established the definition of Natural born citizen as Born in the US of American Citizensssss, established that the laws of and treaties between foreign governments are to be adhered to (in acccordance with Natural Law and Vattel), including military enlistment requirements.
dunstvangeet,
Since when is the St. Petersburg times a court record or a legislative record, let alone the authority on a law.
You Obots have issues reckoning with reality. You’d make lousy lawyers.
Brygenome stated:
“Resolution 511 of the 110′th Senate noted both parents, rather than one, because John McCain’s parents were both citizens, and because S. 2678 had stalled (and eventually failed).”
Your analysis is flawed in that you fail to acknowledge the statement made by Cherthoff, a former federal Judge, wherein he explains his understanding of what “natural born citizen” standards require. His statement is not written about John McCain, it’s written about “you”, hence anyone.
Here’s what Cherthoff said:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”
See the words “if you are born”… Such words are clearly not tailored to John McCain. It’s just a general statement.
dunstvangeet said:
“There’s just one problem, Phil.
Hawaii doesn’t fit the definition of ‘Abroad’.”
The actual issue raised pertains to why the Senate resolution requires 2 citizen parents for persons born abroad? The issue raised in the post was not that the Resolution applies to Obama, but that the Senators, Obama himself and Cherthoff have made reference to a policy of requiring two citizen parents for persons born abroad to have nbc status. The article states that we need to know what the underlying policy for that requirement is.
Why didn’t Cherthoff say:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of an American parent, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”
???
There’s a policy behind his actual statement which requires being born of “American parents”. They need to express that policy.
It’s obvious that national safety from foreign influence is the policy and a sane one at that which is the same policy behind denying persons born in the USA to a parent who was never a US citizen nbc status.
dancin Rick scores again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47gahDuOff8
HD wrote
As regards your own dual citizenship HD, your statements seem inconsistent with Italian Law, which grants the right to those born of Italian citizens, up to the second generation of seeking recognition of their citizenship. This does not mean you are a citizen of Italy prior to recognition, as Italy does not even know of your existence prior to asking. It is part of the registration of foreign birth an Italian parent makes of his child born over seas at the nearest Italian consulate, or of the individual himself when an adult, at an Italian consulate, when he so requests it.
Therefore it is disingenuous to say you were an Italian citizen without any voluntary act of your own.
But your score on citizen questions is long proven to be erratic. Italy did not have mandatory Military conscription, until 2005, it has compulsory military duty for young men, not for adults who claimed recognition after the age of 26 or something like that. As a US pilot, if you requested your citizenship by a voluntary act after the age of 30, you were never subject to the compulsory duty. You had only the formality of registering for military service in the eventuality of a war.
Personally, I believe that any US military personal who request dual citizenship after signing up, should be courtmartialed. But here is where I differ with Obots: I recognize that this is my opinion and not the law.
Dustvangeet,
You are dead wrong. Without precise wording or proper context you can’t possibly say that what the St. Petersburg Times “reported” is true or that you understand it. They may have emailed Okubo, not shown you the email, and taken out the line “It’s a valid state birth certificate” referring to the fact that a COLB is a valid one, not THE COLB that is in question. In fact, Hawai’i DoH officials have done this countless time to address the issue that most “birth certificates” in Hawaii are now COLBs although the long form still exists. And they used that wording to talk about COLBs in general.
Furthermore, if they confirmed it one time, they would have no problem confirming it again. Several emails since then have denied this request explicity. That’s why you have nothing official now, nor have you ever had anything official out of DoH. They don’t know. And why should they? It’s not their job to inspect documents until someone makes it their business or orders them to verify anything.
Finally, if any of these newspapers claims were true and indisputable, why also wouldn’t the 31Oct2008 OFFICIAL .pdf release by Fukino say clearly that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, period?
We’ve told you guys why countless times. They aren’t allowed to inspect his documents without a court order or his permission, and as I’ve said, it is not their business to check for eligibility. Soon we’ll know when Discovery begins.
And what will you say when it becomes apparent, at the very least, that he was NOT born at Kapioliani Medical Center, as he has stated? What excuses will you make for his lies, then?
Will you find it at least somewhat troubling that he lied about something regarding his birth, or will you apologize and wish it away, all the more?
The problem comes that you can’t cite one case that says that U.S. Nationality Law functions dependant upon other nationality law, which is what you’re claiming. In fact, Perkins v. Elg actually directly states that U.S. Nationality law operates completely independantly from any other nationality law. So, if someone would be a natural-born citizen if they held no other citizenship, then they’d be a natural-born citizen with 5 different citizenships. You have yet to show me one case that upholds your theory. (Don’t cite Dred Scott, because that was overturned with both the 14th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Even George W. Bush has said that Dred Scott was one of the worst decisions in the history.)
I guess that a lot of individuals don’t believe what Obama has stated directly, via his books and other sources. On his website, he proclaimed that he is a “native” American. On his website, he also affirmed that he was born with dual citizenship, which existed until he was 21. He acknowledged these things and individuals are still arguing what Obama, the messiah, himself has stated the alternative. How can a person who admits having dual citizenship be a natural born citizen? & How can people be so blinded and deaf by political divides to not see and hear the words spoken and the proclamations that Obama himself has made? Amazing!!! I take him at his own words that he is a Kenyan; that he was born with dual citizenship; that he is a native or naturalized citizen; that he moved to Indonesia and attended school there as a citizen of that country; that he used cocaine; & so forth. It’s a miracle that some of you are not arguing that he did not use cocaine (it was really Gold Metal Flour) or that he wasn’t editor of the Harvard Law Review. You believe that because it’s favorable to your cause!!! Can anyone explain to me how can a person, who has failed in College (any college) and was an average high school student (average would mean that out of 500 graduates a person is ranked between 200-300 in his/her class), apply for and gains admittance to attend Columbia University, when the entry requirements are so strict that they decline superior high school students with unparalled academic performance? Also Can anyone explain how can this same student leave for a number of years to return to a work as an organizer with an undergraduate degree and applies to and gains admission to attend Harvard (with even a greater entrance requirement)while there are unflawed potential students who are rejected for admittance?
Phil says:
June 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
“Not only this, but I would like to see a cited reference as to the transaction that occurred between some yet unknown individual and the Hawaii Department of Health that actually obtained the certification of live birth.”
This just demonstrates what I have said repeatedly about birther demands for documents. No matter what Pres Obama would show you, you would always want more identification. You want to see a receipt or acknowledgement of the request for a copy of his birth certificate? Ridiculous. Why are you demanding more identification from this President than you have ever seen for any other?
HistorianDude said:
They would be very wrong. I don’t know who you spoke with over there, but they put you in legal harm’s way with that misleading information. You are required to adhere to the laws of both nations and you can, if Italy pushes hard enough, be extradited to Italy for it.
After all, we already went to war over this very issue back in 1812, with Britain of course. But don’t take my word for it, just read about it on the State Department’s web site:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual citizenship is BAD. You essentially serve two masters. This is very much a serious issue, and the State Department has been covering the serious problems with dual nationality and how it’s negatively affecting U.S. immigration for nearly 20 years.
I firmly believe you are siding with Soetoro because you and he are very much alike in your citizenship. But let me be very clear about this: if Italy demands you do follow their law, and you are still an Italian citizen and refuse to abide by that law, you will be extradited. The State Department will do what they can, but they won’t create an international incident over it. Believe what you want about the U.S. government. They are not here to help you. They are here to help themselves.
I don’t know how further the words, “It’s a valid Hawaii Birth Certificate” can go, Phil. If you don’t believe those words were uttered, take it up with the St. Petersburg Times, Phil.
Swing, and a miss!
Phil:
That’s not the issue, Phil. The issue is that you repeatedly insist that she said things that she did not say at all.
You’ve been tossing around this particular irrelevancy for weeks. So… why haven’t you called them yet? Exactly?
HistorianDude,
I believe that what Ms. Lines said is true, as she’s spent more time with a copy of the document than I have.
Not only this, but I would like to see a cited reference as to the transaction that occurred between some yet unknown individual and the Hawaii Department of Health that actually obtained the certification of live birth.
If I can reasonably conclude that the transaction actually occurred, then I’ll proceed forward in considering the merits of the certification of live birth.
To me, this isn’t difficult to understand. Either the transaction exists and is recorded to have happened or we’re all looking at an illegitimate piece of paper.
-Phil
JeffM:
Oh… very bad move, Jeff. Because some of us have actually done that… i.e. asked the State Department.
1. Most American dual citizens don’t even know they are dual citizens. This is because most such foreign citizenships (such as Obama’s and mine) were automatic and completely involuntary.
2. I am a dual citizen of the US (natural born by every Birther standard) and Italy. Italy had mandatory military conscription until 2005. I was not required to serve. The State Department told me I didn’t have to.
[Unneeded verbiage; it's a shame I have to do these kinds of edits!]
Phil:
Do you not consider Dr. Alvin T. Onaka a Hawaiian official? Because he certified Obama’s Hawaiian birth right there on the back of the COLB itself.
brygenon said:
Question: Protect the nation from what???
Answer: foreign influence and control over U.S. presidents
Question: How does a foreign nation influence and control citizens of the United States?
Answers:
1. Laying claim to those who are citizens of these foreign nations by birthright (i.e. dual nationality)
2. Being born to foreign citizens on U.S. soil (i.e. dual nationality)
3. Being born in another nation to U.S. citizens (i.e. dual nationality)
4. Being born in another nation to foreign citizens
5. Being naturalized as a U.S. citizen (i.e. prior allegiance to a foreign nation)
6. Being charged with treason against the United States
7. Aiding enemies of the United States
8. Being born in the U.S. but become a foreigner after birth to a foreign nation (e.g. defecting, naturalization, etc.)
9. Being born out of wedlock where at least one parent is a foreigner (i.e. dual nationality and/or foreign nationality)
McCain falls into item 3. Soetoro falls into items 1,2,8, and 9. But don’t take my word for it. Ask the U.S. State Department. They’ll tell you flat out you must adhere to the laws and the whims of all nationalities you maintain. For example, if you are both a Mexican Citizen and a Citizen of the United States, you must adhere to both nation’s laws. If Mexico calls you up for draft in a Mexican war, you must abide by that law, and are therefore at the whim of the nation you lay your allegiance to.
Nice try though about the framer’s intent. It definitely shines light into why you and other “pro Soetoro” folks clearly do not understand the Constitution as it pertains to allegiance.
Brgynon wrote,
How can you claim to know what the Framers intended?
And you say we patriots are presumptuous!!!!!!!!!!
dunstvangeet,
Of course it doesn’t. But, then again, Hawaiian officials have never claimed that Mr. Obama was actually born in Hawaii.
-Phil
Amazing what Leo Donofrio builds up in his head. Even more ridiculous is how some here hang on his every pronouncement while they must know his record for naught but folly and failure.
Resolution 511 of the 110′th Senate noted both parents, rather than one, because John McCain’s parents were both citizens, and because S. 2678 had stalled (and eventually failed). Resolution 511 was narrowly focused, and was not an attempt at deep analysis of Framers’ intent.
That said, however the Framers intended to protect the nation, that intent could not conceivably be served by disqualifying from the presidency a child born to the McCain family, based on the geographic location where our military decided to station his parents at the time of his birth. McCain was eligible. Obama too. Deal with it.
For continued reading
Obama’s Lawyers caught in lies
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/obamas-lawyers-caught-in-lies/
and
Natural Born Confusion – Only for Obama supporters
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/natural-born-confusion-only-for-obama-supporters/
I guess NYTimes censors even the big guys…
There’s just one problem, Phil.
Hawaii doesn’t fit the definition of “Abroad”.