Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Via WND; - Best-seller: Obama has not proved birthplace - Sole document released leaves open possibility he was born outside Hawaii -

While there is no evidence he was born overseas[except this], President Obama has not released sufficient documentation to prove his place of birth, conclude the authors of a recently released book.

An investigation by the authors found the sole birth documentation released by the president, a Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, generated in 2007 by the state of Hawaii, does not definitively establish Obama's origin.

The investigation also debunked various claims that Obama was born in Kenya.[except this]

Is there still any doubt about Obama's alien agenda for our country? Get Aaron Klein's "The Manchurian President" at WND's Superstore. Autographed!

With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

After the release of a COLB, made available online during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama and his team then claimed, and continue to claim, that Obama had released his birth certificate.

Obama said in an interview aired yesterday[here] with NBC "Nightly News," "I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

However, there are major, important differences between the COLB Obama has produced and a long-form birth certificate. An official long-form birth certificate is an exact photocopy of the original birth record prepared by the hospital or attending physician at the time of a child's birth. Such a document usually includes parents' information (address of residence, race, birthplace, date of birth, etc.), additional information on the child's birthplace and information on the doctors who assisted in the birth. The long form also usually includes the signature of the doctor involved and of at least one of the parents.

The short form COLB which Obama has made public is a computer-generated certification that lists the child's name, date of birth, gender, place of birth and time, and the names of Obama's parents. No birth hospital or doctor is listed.

"Manchurian President" points out some have been inclined to accept Obama's COLB as proof of his birthplace since it is a state-generated document specifying the president's place of birth as Hawaii. The fact is, however, that in 1961, the year of Obama's birth, there were a number of ways to obtain a Hawaiian COLB that would leave open the possibility of the child being born outside the state.

One way included one parent providing the state with proof of residence in Hawaii as well as a pre-natal and post-natal certification by a physician. The pre-natal report would certify the mother was pregnant. The post-natal report would certify an examination of a newborn baby. This leaves open the possibility of a child being born outside of Hawaii but still receiving a state COLB.

Other methods included obtaining a "Delayed Certificate," but that would be noted on the certificate itself.

Meanwhile, even today it is still possible to obtain a COLB for a child born outside of Hawaii, the book found.

The Hawaiian government's official website (link: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM) lists in S338-17.8 of its state law on official forms "rules to obtain Certificates for children born out of State."

The law states:

a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.


b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.


c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91.

In other words, the form released by Obama apparently could still be legally obtained by a mother who gave birth to a child outside Hawaii, although such a certificate would not list "Hawaii" as the birthplace, as does Obama's.

Newspaper Proof? Statements from Hawaiian Official?

Two Hawaiian newspaper announcements from 1961 support the assertion of Obama's Hawaiian birth. However, both the newspapers in question, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser, simply reprint birth information they receive from Hawaii's Department of Health, meaning Obama's parents did not have to place the announcements in the papers.

The only legitimate conclusion that can be gleaned from the newspaper announcements is that the state of Hawaii issued a COLB documenting Obama's birth. This is already known, asserts Klein and Elliott.

"Regardless, newspaper announcements, even if they had been placed at the time by Obama's parents, are hardly official proof of birth," writes Klein. ...continue reading here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=197385
Official Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth vs Obama's Certification of Live Birth
- FIVE ATTEMPTS TO RE-DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SINCE 2001 -
Citizen v natural born Citizen-It's Don't Ask Don't Tell-20100809 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5



11 comments:

  1. from world net daily link~

    Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.

    "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

    Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution , that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

    "So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

    ReplyDelete
  2. STOP THE EXCUSES! REMOVE THE USURPER!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Someone do something. This issue is clear as day!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Birther/Dualer/Doubter from CAAugust 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM

    Can't help but have a Dr. Seuss tale pop into mind, substituting the usurper's name for Richard M. Nixon's: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041901099.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. "While there is no evidence he was born overseas..."

    "The investigation also debunked various claims that Obama was born in Kenya."

    I guess Klein Doesn't read WND, which has reported evidence for Zero's Kenyan birth, especially a govt. official who recently stated it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There remains a 'major' impediment to 'proving' the '0' is NOT a 'natural born citizen'.

    That is there is NO 'legal' recognized 'definition' of the Constitutional 'idiom' of 'natural born citizen'.

    Of course, ANYONE researching MUST come to the understanding that the Framers of the Constitution understood the definition to be a 'person born within any one of the various States of two Citizen Parents, i.e., a citizen Father, the mother being of the citizenship of her husband.

    But it seems that, along with a large budget deficit, there is a HUGE deficit of 'intellectual honesty' on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

    Great article on what is means to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "JeanWTPUSA said...
    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

    Great article on what is means to be a Natural Born Citizen."

    I did not mean to say that the 'definition, meaning and intent' of the Constitutional 'idiom' IS NOT KNOWN by those who adhere to intellectually honest principles, but what I am attempting to make clear is that there is NO recognized 'legal' definition.

    That FACT is the 'legal loop-hole' that the '0' has used to slip past all the safeguards and the breach through which the flood of deceit, deception, distortions and obfuscation’s flow.

    Until WE have a 'legal definition', replete with its meaning and intent, WE can not PROVE that the '0' is NOT an NBC.

    Under the LAW, as it NOW stands, there are NO 'natural born citizens' of the Constitutional form.

    There are ONLY 'native born citizens' of the 14th Amendment.

    It IS a 'citizenship question' in the 1st instant and a 'political question' of a transient nature.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Will no one challenge me and the proposition I just put forward...?

    Do you think that I am saying that to pursue the 'legal definition, meaning and intent' of the Constitutional 'idiom' of 'natural born citizen' is a dead end...?

    Where is the outrage from ALL those that ARE NBC's of the Constitutional form, those from who a POTUS was meant to be selected from...?

    Do you not realize that your parents citizenship is being dismissed as irrelevant and that YOUR citizenship counts for no more than that of an 'anchor baby'...?

    Ask EVERY elected representative what their 'intellectually honest' definition of NBC is, and why...?

    IT IS A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION 1st.

    ReplyDelete
  10. IT IS SIMPLY STUNNING HOW JUST ABOUT EVERYONE HAS OVERLOOKED WHAT CONSTANTLY APPEARS RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES(the precise language was even used in this recent bill,proposed,an attempt to more clearly "define an Art II NBC' from 2004) :

    "Any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
    Don't you see it? 'SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF'
    AND IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF LYMAN TRUMBULL---"THE PROVISION IS, THAT ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ARE CITIZENS. THAT MEANS SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION THEREOF. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY COMPLETE JURISDICTION THEREOF?
    HERE IT COMES, FOLKS----
    "NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYONE ELSE. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS"
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Question: Could it be true that another General has recently come out in support of LtCol. Lakin?

    My recent blog post reveals the answer to this question-You Decide:

    http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/another-general-supports-ltcol-lakin/

    ‘Food For Thought”

    “God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

    Semper Fi!

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.