Eligibility Update: HI DoH Begins Revealing Data; Judge Responds in Kerchner v. Obama
In his continuing quest to demand answers to the question of how Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino could proclaim Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen, attorney Leo Donofrio has, for the first time known to the eligibility movement, received an actual response from the Department with respect to some semblance of Mr. Obama’s background:
The Hawaii Department of Health has reversed course. They now admit that they do - in fact – make some vital records information available to the public. This admission reverses their prior response pattern indicating that “no information” could be released.
You will recall from Part 1 of my full report that previous official responses to UIPA requests were greeted with statements – issued by DoH Director Fukino and DoH Communications Director Okubo – which indicated that state law forbid “any information” about Hawaii vital records from being released. These rigid responses were issued despite the clear applicability of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d) which requires the mandatory release of some information from vital records on file with the DoH.
Just after I released that report, the Post and Email blog detailed that another researcher who requested “index data” had received the same improper denial of access to that index data. I blogged on that denial in my report entitled, “Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places her Thumb Directly In The Giants Eye.”
Behind the scenes, myself and two other members of my research team – KingsKid and Justin Riggs – have been issuing very specific UIPA requests. And last night KingsKid received a response to her UIPA request from DoH Communications Director Okubo which exhibits a complete reversal of policy.
KingsKid UIPA REQUEST ANSWERED BY OKUBO… AND MORE?
From: [KingsKid real name redacted]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:03 AMSubject: Request for information
Dear Ms. Okubo,
IAW Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d), I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.
This statute at para (d) provides officials no authority to withhold the requested information. Therefore, I as an American citizen, am invoking Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d) Disclosure of records, which reads as follows: (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public [my emphasis].
Ms. Okubo, I worked for the federal government for 32 years as a contracting officer and can appreciate the position you are in. However, I will tell you this, when it came to doing my job, I never allowed politics to interfere. Call it personal integrity, upholding my principles, or whatever. I went by the acquisition regulations scrupulously, thus, no one could ever contest what I had done. Yes, I encountered opposition when I rebuffed “politics”, but I wouldn’t budge. Standing steadfast sometimes brought me short-term grief, but in the end, right triumphed. I see you in a similar situation. I don’t know you or your personal ethics or agenda. I do know that as a public official and servant to the people, you have a duty to carry out the laws that govern your department.
Ms. Okubo, you cannot escape the duty you have … in providing this information to anyone who requests it. According to the referenced statute, you are to provide me all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr (or any other name he has used as indicated above), AND such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public. My request right now is limited to all the index data on Mr. Obama. If you have other information that you care to make available in addition, please send that also.
As a public servant, you have the responsibility to uphold the law in all respects and not cherry-pick what is politically expedient for you or any other public servant. All your public responses that I have seen on the internet to date, absolutely avoid any reference at all to paragraph (d). You obviously don’t want to release Mr. Obama’s index file, but by your own law, you have to. The truth always comes out, Ms. Okubo. You can save yourself embarrassment, if something not more serious, by quickly complying with Hawa’ii Revised Statute, paragraph 338-18(d)…Last night, Janice Okubo responded to KingsKid with the following email:From: Okubo, Janice S.To: [email redacted]Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PMSubject: RE: Request for information
Aloha..,
Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu . The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.
In response to your request the following index data is being provided:
BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORINGCHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
MMARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING
GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…(Okubo used the “blue ink” to transmit the index data. And Stanley Ann’s last name is misspelled as “DUNHAN”. It should be “Dunham”. KingsKid is awaiting clarification.)
[UPDATE: 2:35 PM 10.02.09 KingsKid was informed by Okubo that the index file has the correct spelling "DUNHAM" and the typo was her mistake, it's spelled correctly in the file.]
This response certainly gives a plethora of new information. First and foremost, it tells us that a thumb is being removed from the giant’s eye. This is, as far as I know, the first time the DoH has responded to a request for information from President Obama’s vital records by releasing actual records as opposed to Fukino’s view of those records.
This is a significant change in policy caused by renewed public attention.
It also tells one where to view the actual index data with your own eyes, “…the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu.”
The index file also lists President Obama’s name as “Barack Hussein Obama II”.
BRIDE AND GROOM?
This information allows us to put the rumour to bed which claims that Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. weren’t married. They were married in Hawaii. However…
KingsKid didn’t request index data for Stanley Ann or Barack, Sr.
I thought it was very odd that Okubo included the marriage index information in her response to KingsKid’s very specific request for President Obama’s index data. Specifically, I was confused as to why Okubo’s response would list “Bride” and “Groom” in Obama’s index file instead of “Mother” and “Father”.
Okubo’s response to KingsKid gives the impression that the names of Obama’s parents are included in that response – but it doesn’t have them listed as parents.
It has them listed only as bride and groom.
Knowing that the DoH has exhibited a penchant for misdirection, this raised a big red flag for me.
I asked KingsKid to write back to Okubo and have her clarify whether the index data made available to the public includes parentage or whether the information Okubo provided was from the index files of Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. I also suggested that KingsKid query Okubo as to whether a divorce would appear in the index file.
Below is the follow up inquiry sent by KingsKid to Okubo at 10:07PM EST, last night (Oct. 1, 2009):
Thank you for your response. However, I am a bit perplexed by the terms “bride” and “groom”, and would appreciate clarification. Is the “bride and groom” index data that you provided part of the President’s index file, or is it from Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr index files? Also, was the divorce of SAD and BOH, Sr. part of the 338-18(d) index data?
Thank you for your assistance once again.And here is Okubo’s response:
From: Okubo, Janice S.To: [KingsKid - real name redacted]Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:29 PMSubject: RE: Clarificatio, Please
Aloha..,
I am sorry; I may have misunderstood your request. The “bride” and “groom” index data is from Stanley Ann Dunahm and Barack Hussein Obama index files.
The Department of Health does not hold divorce records, they are with the Department of Judiciary.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of HealthSo now we know that the DoH doesn’t maintain divorce records. Those are maintained by the “Judiciary”.
Beyond that, I just don’t know what to make of this at all. I can’t see how Okubo could have “misunderstood” the request. KingsKid was very specific:
“…I am requesting all index data pertaining to the vital records of Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr, Mr. Barack H. Obama, II, and/or Mr. Barry Soetoro or any other name used by that party.”
It’s clear that KingsKid was asking only for the President’s index data, not for the index data of Stanley Ann and/or Barack Sr. Okubo’s response offered up information from multiple index files. But nowhere in the request does it make reference to anyone but the President.
Either, Communications Director Okubo did misunderstand the request, or she was trying to give the impression that the President’s index data lists the names of Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. as his parents.
I am truly baffled. Since when does the DoH give more information than was requested. Are we going to be subjected to Seussian Hooplah such as – It depends what the meaning of “parents” is – ?
I have to believe the President’s vital records will show that SAD and BHO are his biological parents. But Okubo’s response to KingsKid, Fukino’s “natural-born” determination, and the refusal by the DoH to enlighten the public as to Attorney General Mark Bennet’s approval thereof forces the need for public inquiry to reach much further.
Also, Okubo’s response misspells Stanley Ann’s last name as “Dunahm” while the index data misspells Stanley Ann’s name as “Dunhan“. Researchers visiting the Office of Health Status Monitoring will need to use multiple variations of the name “Dunham” in order to thoroughly search the public index data. Cue Twilight Zone theme. [UPDATED: 2:34 PM 10.02.09 - Okubo has taken responsibility for the spelling errors. They are a non-issue.]
And finally, it isn’t clear to us yet whether the index data provided by Okubo to KingsKid includes all of the index data available via 338-18(d) for Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. We need further clarification on that.
MAYA SOETORO
KingsKid also requested index data for Maya Soetoro, the President’s sister. Okubo’s response indicates that there is no record on file with the DoH in Hawaii for Maya. So, I believe we can safely put to bed all allegations that Obama’s online COLB was created using a COLB issued for Maya as a template.
Here is the request made by KingsKid on September 28, 2009 5:20 AM as to Maya:
As per Hawai’i Revised Statute 338-18(d), I am herein requesting “index data” available to the public according to the statute, specifically the index data pertaining to a birth record for the person known as President Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro, aka Maya Kassandra Soetoro, aka Maya Soetoro-ng…
Below is Okubo’s response:
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [KingsKid email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Request for InformationAloha…
There is no record that responds to this request.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of HealthPROPER RESPONSE UNDER OIP ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
This response by Okubo illustrates the correct format Hawaii state agencies must comply with when the requested records are not maintained by an agency. (See OIP administrative rule §2-71-14(c)(1).) If the agency does not maintain the record they must inform the requestor that no such record exists.
All of this correspondence between Okubo and KingsKid is encouraging. It tells me that the DoH is aware of a growing public enlightenment concerning citizen knowledge of open government laws. It’s important now that we stay on point and get all of the information the law makes available to the public.
BASTIONS OF ELIGIBILITY BLOWIN’ IN THE WIND
I would like to point out that the two core bastions cited by members of Congress and the main stream media as providing credibility to Obama’s eligibility issues – Factcheck.org and the Hawaii Department of Health – have both been seriously impeached by the findings of this blog.
Not only was Factcheck.org forced to admit I caught them making a serious error as to their factchecking of President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship, they had to publish a second apologetic response due to their having mistakenly reported that I was a “former attorney” while I am fully licensed. Factcheck.org blamed their mistake on other news reports, but they certainly could have checked with me or the New Jersey court system had they been truly dedicated to getting their facts straight before publication.
Now the Hawaii DoH has been forced to back pedal from a previous pattern of issuing blanket denials of access to “all information” contained in Hawaii vital records.
My next report will analyze the legal means by which the public should gain access to President Obama’s vital records which have already been made public by him and the Hawaii DoH.
by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Copyright 2009 Leo C. Donofrio [emphases original]
Many congratulations to Mr. Donofrio, KingsKid, and (likely) various other individuals who have received actual data!
To recap, we now know for a fact the following information:
- Barack Hussein Obama’s parents;
- That Mr. Obama’s parents were, at one point, married;
- That Maya Soetoro is not recorded to have been a child of Mr. Obama (I) or Ms. Dunham.
Further, we also now know for a fact the following information:
- Whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii;
- Whether or not Maya Soetoro was born in Hawaii;
- The DoH is refusing to furnish any further information based on their previous responses.
And so the question remains; since the index data does not in any way reveal conclusive evidence that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, upon what basis did the Director make such a proclamation?
I still say it’s the DNC’s candidate eligibility certification.
Also, after attorney Mario Apuzzo issued a letter to the Judge overseeing his case, he received the following response today:
Kerchner v Obama & Congress – DOC 40 Judge Simandle Response to Atty Apuzzo Letter of Inquiry
Per a recent posting by the lead Plaintiff, Charles Kerchner (further links available there), here’s the current Court docket:
Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Docket Report
Don’t forget to see another informative posting from John Charlton at The Post & Email entitled, “The Crime of Usurpation.”
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
John
nonsense, I simply do a google look up.
Does anyone wonder where all the SUPPOSED Obama supporters are coming from? Now you know. – http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/10/07/the-obama-justice-departments-secret-blogging-team-is-it-illegal/
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”
And Wong Kim Ark goes on to dispel those doubts.
Bob says:
October 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Both parents must have been American Citizens.
Now just find a case that actually says that, and you might be in business.
___________________________________________________________________
Really? Here’s one
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”"
I know, reality and truth mean nothing to the Obama obfuscators, but there is your case.
Both parents must have been American Citizens.
Now just find a case that actually says that, and you might be in business.
Regardless of where Barry was born he is not a Natural Born American Citizen. His father was not an American citizen of any type,not even a permanent resident alien, or anything at the time, He was a citizen of Kenya under British jusrisdiction, thus his son Barack II is not a Natural Born American Citizen. Both parents must have been American Citizens.
And the fact is, there is no original documentation that has explicitly verified Obama’s place of birth.
None is required for eligibility purposes, and the COLB is sufficient.
He merely released an allegedly authentic COLB – on the internet.
The COLB is a legal document, there’s no competence evidence to suggest it is fake, and it has been corroborated by the index data and Fukino’s statement.
The laws for obtaining and amending birth certificates have been presented.
And they are in no relevant because there is no actual evidence that Obama’s birth certificate was amended, just speculation.
Ignore it if you must, but your ignorance does not refute the fact that foreign birth is at least possible in Obama’s case, despite his posting of a COLB and the mere existence of a birth index with his name.
The only way that is possible in this case would be through documentary fraud, and there’s no evidence that occurred with Obama.
Possibility does not mean actuality – it merely renders the matter unresolved.
There is a difference between doubt and reasonable doubt.
Yet you presume to already know the absolute truth and have resolved the matter in your own mind.
Because there is simply no contrary evidence. Doubt based on a lack of evidence is not reasonable.
Facts are facts.
Oh, the irony.
Bob,
Oh, well. You at least tried debating for a moment. Now you are choosing to ignore what is. Facts are facts. And the fact is, there is no original documentation that has explicitly verified Obama’s place of birth. He merely released an allegedly authentic COLB – on the internet. The laws for obtaining and amending birth certificates have been presented. Ignore it if you must, but your ignorance does not refute the fact that foreign birth is at least possible in Obama’s case, despite his posting of a COLB and the mere existence of a birth index with his name. Possibility does not mean actuality – it merely renders the matter unresolved. Yet you presume to already know the absolute truth and have resolved the matter in your own mind. Good for you, and good luck with that.
I will not waste any more time with you on this.
Prior to 1972, a foreign-born person could file for a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
Regardless if a foreign-born person could, Obama posted an image of his COLB (not COHB). Where’s this mythical Obama COHB?
In addition, there is a process outlined in section 338 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes where a person can amend their Hawaiian birth certificate – sections 15,16, and 17.
And under Hawaiian law, any certificate so amended will be clearly labeled as such. Obama’s is not.
In any case, the COLB is not a substitute for determining the actual place of birth reported in 1961.
It is, as under Hawaiian law the COLB derives its data from the birth certificate. Which is why the COLB is acceptable for obtaining a passport, driver’s license, etc.
And the State of Hawaii has recognized that this document is not a complete birth record (via the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands) and is not sufficient for determining native Hawaiian birth.
A requirement since withdrawn and totally irrelevant, as Obama is not claiming to be a native-blood Hawaiian.
Furthermore, your assertion that it is impossible for someone born outside of Hawaii to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate is absolutely wrong.
Except it isn’t. (I said such a certificate would not list the place of birth as Honolulu.)
Since it is in fact possible and has happened, it certainly cannot be ruled out in Obama’s case.
Except it hasn’t.
You may choose to believe in Obama and have faith in his claims, but others choose to rely on the facts as they are disseminated.
It is what the State of Hawaii claims.
As of this moment, the actual facts about his birth (the ones on file with the Hawaii Department of Health – the “vault copy”) have yet to be released publicly.
He was born in Hawaii; all else is irrelevant for eligibility.
I am of the opinion that foreign citizens, even if acquiring dual citizenship, are not eligible for the presidency.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, it is not shared by any scholar of note, and rather plainly contradicted by SCOTUS case law.
And Obama has not been a dual citizen for at least 25 years.
Bob,
It’s good to see that you’re attempting to engage in debate.
“1. HRS 338-17.8 did not go into effect until 1982.
“2. HRS 338-17.8 does allow for the registration of foreign births; it does not allow to register a birth as occurring in Hawaii.”
I’m glad you read this and pointed it out. However, you originally stated the following:
“There is no such thing as ‘register[ing] as his place of birth.’ It is his place of birth.”
It is clear that there is currently such a thing and it will soon be clear that there was before 1982 as well. So, where do we go from here?
Prior to 1972, a foreign-born person could file for a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, even as an adult seeking residence in Hawaii. Several foreigners did so, received this document, and it has been made public. They received a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth as adults despite the fact that they were born and lived in another country for most or all of their lives.
In addition, there is a process outlined in section 338 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes where a person can amend their Hawaiian birth certificate – sections 15,16, and 17.
The process for filing and amending birth certificates, even for those foreign-born persons, was in place before, during, and after Obama’s birth. So, just because a Certification of Live Birth exists does not necessarily mean that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. This document only reflects current data – data that could have been legally amended or data that merely reflects testimony or affadavits filed around the time of his birth.
In any case, the COLB is not a substitute for determining the actual place of birth reported in 1961. And the State of Hawaii has recognized that this document is not a complete birth record (via the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands) and is not sufficient for determining native Hawaiian birth. They do not accept this document because the Hawaiian laws allow for other methods of obtaining the certificate and altering that information long after birth. They do not accept it because the information does not necessarily reflect the actual facts of birth as originally recorded.
So, this means that the COLB is not sufficient evidence to prove that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. It also means that the index data is just as reliable – i.e. not at all – for determining the same facts. What is needed is the original documentation on file with the Department of Health.
Furthermore, your assertion that it is impossible for someone born outside of Hawaii to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate is absolutely wrong. Since it is in fact possible and has happened, it certainly cannot be ruled out in Obama’s case. And this is where we arrive at the main problem.
To date, we have only seen an on-line production of a COLB and have been directed to a birth index that has named Obama and identified him as a male. You may choose to believe in Obama and have faith in his claims, but others choose to rely on the facts as they are disseminated. As of this moment, the actual facts about his birth (the ones on file with the Hawaii Department of Health – the “vault copy”) have yet to be released publicly.
However, once this hurdle is overcome – if ever – we would still need to determine constitutional eligibility. That inquiry will need to be legally decided by people other than ourselves. I am of the opinion that foreign citizens, even if acquiring dual citizenship, are not eligible for the presidency. But that is an opinion based on reason – something severely lacking amongst lawyers, judges, and “scholars” today. (There will be more to come on that topic at my website over the next few weeks.)
So, yes, it is possible to be born outside Hawaii and receive a birth certificate from that state.
1. HRS 338-17.8 did not go into effect until 1982.
2. HRS 338-17.8 does allow for the registration of foreign births; it does not allow to register a birth as occurring in Hawaii.
Bob,
“There is no such thing as ‘register[ing] as his place of birth.’ It is his place of birth.”
Actually, there is such thing. Please refer to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17.8.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM
If a person is born outside the State of Hawaii, all the parents need to do is establish that they were residents for one year prior to the birth. So, yes, it is possible to be born outside Hawaii and receive a birth certificate from that state. But don’t let that get in the way of your absolute certainty that it is not so.
The fact that it is merely a “birth index”?
An index of births…in Hawaii.
The on-line copy of the COLB shows that Obama’s place of birth is Honolulu, but is Hawaii simply registered as his place of birth or was he actually born there?
There is no such thing as “register[ing] as his place of birth.” It is his place of birth.
Bob,
“They both, very plainly, are evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.”
Really? What is it about this data that shows Obama was born in Hawaii:
“CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M”
The fact that it is merely a “birth index”? I see nothing that says this child was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
The on-line copy of the COLB shows that Obama’s place of birth is Honolulu, but is Hawaii simply registered as his place of birth or was he actually born there? The document does not specify and the fact of the matter is, he could have been registered as a native birth without being born there, according to laws at that time. That doesn’t make anyone liars, except perhaps Fukino, if in fact Obama was not born in Hawaii. But Fukino may have simply based that statement on the previously “released” COLB and the index data.
So, it is possible that nobody is “lying” and, at the same time, it is also possible that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. But to put the issue to rest, all it would take is an examination of the “long form” birth certificate. It’s all very simple, yet a few people need this to be very complicated. All I would like to know is why – along with what is on the “long form” certificate. No assumptions, no speculation – just the facts as they exist on the original documentation.
Black Lion,
You’re not getting it. Or, perhaps you’re getting it without realizing it.
“And your argument does not take into consideration that the President’s mother was an American citizen. So he being born here to a US citizen mother meets the parent-child conntection regarding citizenship.”
Actually, my argument does take into account his mother’s citizenship. Your argument seems to ignore his father’s. If we consider both, then it is quite clear that Obama was born with two citizenships. Therefore, he was, as a matter of fact, born with divided loyalties. That was and is my argument.
Now, my question was to ask anyone to explain how a person born with divided loyalties (or allegiances) could also be born with undivided loyalty (or allegiance).
“You have no evidence that the President was born anywhere else, just that it might be possible.”
Precisely. And I think that such a possibility has very severe consequences and ought to be determined definitively with the actual evidence – not with index data and statements made by politicians based on that index data. It’s a very simple process, but it is one that has been avoided for over a year. I would like to know why.
Apparently, you are fine with not knowing, or you really believe that you have indeed seen all of the evidence and know the truth. I don’t have as much faith. I’m a facts kind of guy. The fact of the matter is, Obama may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii. The “long-form” birth certificate would settle the matter definitively. But, once again, that is only a small part of the bigger picture. He still has an eligibility problem, no matter where he was born, that needs to be resolved.
As far as the COLB and the index data go…Neither of them provide evidence of where Obama was actually born.
They both, very plainly, are evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
If you refuse to accept this “mundane truth”, then either you are calling Hawaiian official liars, or Obama’s family liars. Accusations unsupported by any competent evidence.
David says:
October 6, 2009 at 3:19 am
“You’re absolutely right that place of birth is important when determining citizenship. But you’re absolutely wrong to claim that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. Reason shouldn’t be so hard to grasp, yet it remains in the shadows. Try to understand why parent and child are connected and how that would apply to citizenship.”
It is irrelevant. See Lynch v Clarke. See how many times English Common law is cited by the courts, including the SCOTUS. Anyone that is born under the allegiance of the king is a natural born subject. The SCOTUS has already stated that our citizenship comes from English Common law. And your argument does not take into consideration that the President’s mother was an American citizen. So he being born here to a US citizen mother meets the parent-child conntection regarding citizenship.
“Neither of them provide evidence of where Obama was actually born. The COLB only provides evidence that the birth has been registered in Hawaii, then provides limited information about that birth. The index data provided by Okubo in the e-mail only provides evidence that a male named Barack Hussein Obama II has a birth file with the Hawaii DoH. The statements made by Fukino and Okubo are based on that “evidence,” but to date, there has been no evidence whatsoever that states precisely where Obama was born – and this is a result of the Hawaiin laws at the time of his birth. The “long form” would contain that information, but it has yet to be produced.”
Again you are wrong. The COLB is evidence of where he was born because it says right on it “place of birth” and Honolulu. You have no evidence that the President was born anywhere else, just that it might be possible. It is possible that your BC is counterfeit, but not likely. The same with the President’s COLB. It says PLACE OF BIRTH-HONOLULU. The directior of vital statistics stated, BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAIII. That is more that enough evidence. You have no evidence that his Mother ever traveled to Kenya, you have no evidence that he was born outside of the US, you have a state certified document and a statement from the state that he was BORN in HI. Not registered, but born. Yet you continue to hang on to some theory that because something could have happened, it it did. The entire birther theory is not probable. Which is why in a court of law it is not even considered. Just because something could have happened doesn’t mean it did. Especially when there is no evidence to support your theory and legally admissible evidence to support the other…
Black Lion,
“I would love for you to show us where someone that was born in the US is considered to have ‘divided loyalties’ and is inellgible to be President. Either by law or the Constitution. So show us something that proves your point. We’re waiting.”
I’m quite certain that such a scenario has been discussed at length throughout American history. And in practically every scenario, a person born in the United States to foreign parents – or just one foreign parent – has, at a minimum, two nationalities (or citizenships) at birth. If you need a reference, pick up a history book, study some foreign laws of citizenship, read some of the debates in Congress, comb through any number of court cases, or read any number of publications written by judges and other statesmen.
One thing has consistently been stated – citizenship and allegiance are reciprocal. If one is a citizen of a country, then they owe that country allegiance. If one is born a citizen of one country, yet is physically born in another country, according to the flawed interpretation of laws today and/or competing national laws of citizenship, that person will have two citizenships and, therefore, two allegiances. Hence, they will have “divided loyalties.”
You’re absolutely right that place of birth is important when determining citizenship. But you’re absolutely wrong to claim that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. Reason shouldn’t be so hard to grasp, yet it remains in the shadows. Try to understand why parent and child are connected and how that would apply to citizenship.
As far as the COLB and the index data go…
Neither of them provide evidence of where Obama was actually born. The COLB only provides evidence that the birth has been registered in Hawaii, then provides limited information about that birth. The index data provided by Okubo in the e-mail only provides evidence that a male named Barack Hussein Obama II has a birth file with the Hawaii DoH. The statements made by Fukino and Okubo are based on that “evidence,” but to date, there has been no evidence whatsoever that states precisely where Obama was born – and this is a result of the Hawaiin laws at the time of his birth. The “long form” would contain that information, but it has yet to be produced.
However, as previously mentioned, it is not merely the place of birth that is relevant to the argument of eligibility – and it never has been. As such, nearly all of the original questions still remain. To date, all of the back-and-forth from both sides has amounted to absolutely nothing when it comes to the constitutional question and to whether or not Obama was in fact born where the on-line COLB says he was. Blame it on the ignorance of constitutional principles or the piss-poor laws of Hawaiin birth registrations in the past, but this has yet to be definitively settled.
Arguing that all of the “evidence” has already been provided and that the Constitutional question has been resolved is both laughable and utterly ignorant. Or it’s simply a desperate attempt to try to end the debate – a la, Al Gore and the “global warming” argument.
The Hawaiian officials have been proven to be misleading and inaccurate
How is the index data “misleading and inaccurate”? How is the COLB “misleading and inaccurate”? How in Fukino’s statement that Obama “was born in Hawaii” “misleading and inaccurate”?
Specifics, please, not generalities.
how can you blithely ignore the Kenyan documentation of Obama’s birth
In addition to lacking any authentication, they’re poor forgeries.