Op-ed:
Marco Rubio IS eligible to be Vice President
By: Diane Sori
As we get nearer to Mitt Romney becoming the Republican nominee for President, the name Marco Rubio has been in the forefront as a possible Vice Presidential pick. However, with his name comes the issue raised by some of does he meet the requirement of being a ‘natural born citizen.’ This issue can be resolved by just reading the words of the Constitution itself...just reading the words as written, and NOT trying to change or reinterpret words that are clear and simple in their meaning.
Let me explain.
While we all know that status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is required to be President or Vice President of this country, NOWHERE, I repeat NOWHERE, in the Constitution does it define what is meant by the words ‘natural born citizen’. Native born citizen is clearly defined...natural born is NOT defined at all. Any and all attempts after the Constitution was adopted are simply supposition, just attempts by others to guess what the Founders meant and no more.
While Article 2 of the Constitution does state, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” the actual term ‘natural born citizen’ was ambiguous at best. Some contend that anyone born inside the U.S. should be considered a natural born citizen, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)* seems to back that view. They have stated that:
"the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
And herein lies the key, and read these words carefully, “one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents...” Even to “alien parents,” as long as the child is born “in” the United States...that is the key phrase in Marco Rubio’s case.
Yes, it is true that Marco’s parents were NOT citizens at the time of his birth but there is NO doubt whatsoever that Marco Rubio was indeed born “in” the United States, in Miami in fact, as he has an indisputable birth certificate that proves just that. His parents received their final naturalization papers in 1975, four years after Marco’ birth but there is NO denying that his “alien parents” parents were here legally, they came here through the legal process, they lived here legally, and they became citizens legally as per the requirements of that day. So, yes they were “alien parents” at the time of Marco’s birth but the Congressional Research Service clearly states that ‘under the Constitution’ as long as the person in question was born here, having “alien parents” means nothing.
There is even more credence in Marco’s eligibility to becoming the Vice Presidential nominee. Article Two: Section One, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President (or Vice President, as the same requirements apply) of the United States:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Now reread these words very carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” This again is a key phrase that allows Marco Rubio to be the Vice Presidential nominee.
Let me explain...the requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation, United States of America, and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were opposed to.
So to make sure this did not happen, as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no one NOT born on United States soil would be eligible to become president, because they feared that England might still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.
To break it down even further, this phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later years.
Now also take into account the words, “...have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” (Marco Rubio was born here and has lived here his entire life, and is over 35 years of age.) “...and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” “been fourteen Years a resident...” the word ‘resident’ contradicts the CRS’s interpretive ruling of having to “be born in” or did they take into account in their ruling that the Founders, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, realized that since the nation was new that maybe some who aspired to the presidency might have been born in England or elsewhere but came here as a child...hmmm, we will never know for sure.
And even in certain court cases that came after the adoption of the Constitution concerning the meaning of ‘natural born citizen,’ like Lynch v. Clarke, the court cited the Constitution and said:
“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
And it went on to state:
“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
Also, Joseph Story, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1811-1845), wrote in his 1840 guidebook to the Constitution (A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States), about the natural-born-citizen clause:
“It is not too much to say that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be entrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.” Note the words ‘native citizen NOT natural citizen.
Even the highly respected Black's Law Dictionary defines "Natural Born Citizen" as "a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government." Understand the words, ‘a person born within’ NOT a person’s parents having been born within.
Ruling after ruling, including this fairly recent memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the afore mentioned Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:
“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."
So with all the information I have presented, it should be clear to all that Senator Marco Rubio IS indeed eligible to be tapped by Mitt Romney to be his Vice Presidential running mate, if Romney so chooses and Marco Rubio so excepts.
______________________________________________
*The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, the CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.
It seems that the left is trying to have it both ways. They put out legislation ostensibly to "clear up" the issue of John McCain's eligibility since he was born on a U.S. base. They've hidden any meaningful data on Barack Obama's true place of national origin. And now they want to pull out a red herring to potentially use against Marco Rubio. Perhaps they know what we know. That Marco Rubio on the ticket with Mitt Romney would guarantee defeat for President Obama come November.
ReplyDeleteNotice the OR in the definition:
Delete"“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."
Rubio and Obama fall under the first of the criteria, birth in the country. McCain falls under the second, birth abroad to citizen parents.
Re: "They've hidden any meaningful data on Barack Obama's true place of national origin...."
Four officials in Hawaii have stated in writing repeatedly that they saw the original long form birth certificate in the files. In addition, the existence of a long form birth certificate in 1961 is further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers. At the time the birth notices for the section of the paper called “Health Bureau Statistics”–which is where Obama’s birth notice appeared—were only sent by the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH only sent those notices for births in Hawaii.
No perhaps about it...they know with Marco on the ticket that Obama IS finished!
ReplyDeleteBecause the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens - Minor vs Happersett case from 1875 the Supreme Court defined a NBC as one who has 2 parents which were citizens AT THE TIME of the child’s birth.
ReplyDeleteIt was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following ...letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying "born" in the original). Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a "Natural born Citizen"
DeleteThe “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen."
Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society.......... The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today..
Definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and PARENTS <---- PLURAL are all united in one nation).
DeleteDefinition of "natural born Citizen" gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States..........
Requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child....
The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President doe...s not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty.... like obama to Muslim country's as a example.........
It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President .....
DeleteWhen President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident ...or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President..... now all you that support bho... need to UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS illegal and can not hold this title of the potus.. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.......UNLESS HE CAN PROVE THAT HIS FATHER & HIS MOTHER WERE BOTH USA CITIZENS WHEN HE WAS BORN FROM THE WOMB .... IN ANY STATE OF AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!
And that goes as well to anyone who intent to run as VP, it's very simple. I suggest people to start looking into this on Mario Apuzzo, who's a constitutionalists lawyer and has place quite few law suits himself. MARCO RUBIO no matter how anyone want to spin, it's NOT legal to hold the office of Vice President, because HE'S NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
DeleteSorry but rulings that came after, as per my piece, have stated otherwise.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they meant natural born and not born by Cesarean method. :-)
ReplyDeleteThat last comment sounds like something that would be said by a "certain" Neanderthal friend of mine.
DeleteArticle II, Section 1, paragraph 5, specifies the "natural born" requirement for PRESIDENT, but makes no requirement for Vice President.
In the event that the President were to cease functioning (for whatever purpose), the ascending Vice President would then have to have the "natural born" qualification to devolve to the office of President.
While it was never clearly DEFINED in the Constitution as to the meaning of 'natural born' -- there was -- however, an understanding from the Framers of the Constitution because of their familiarity with Vattel's "Law of Nations" per that clause.
If we ever arrive to the uncertainty of the VP ascending to President, and the VP is not "natural born" it would be then incumbent on the Supreme Court or the Legislature to define such.
There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel's meaning of Natural Born Citizen. In fact, no volume of Vattel was published in English with the words "Natural Born Citizen" in it until ten years after the Constitution went into effect.
DeleteThe term Natural Born had been used in the common law for three hundred years before the Constitution, and most of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers. Also, there are examples of Americans using the term Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law at the time that the Constitution was written---and no examples of them using it in the Vattel sense.
Yes, they did read Vattel, as an expert on International Law. But they read a lot of other things too.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteI did not say that "the writers of the US Constitution used Vattel's meaning of Natural Born Citezen."
Go back and read my previous comment without trying to interject your false premise into my statement.
I said, "...there was -- however, an understanding from the Framers of the Constitution because of their familiarity with Vattel's "Law of Nations" per that clause.", because, while most of the Framers were lawyers, they were also bi-lingual and multi-lingual (and a far sight more educated that the Great Unwashed of this country.
Since Vattel wrote in French, and quotations were used in private correspondence, and within other documents such as the Federalist papers using the specific wording "law of nations."
Having said that, most, if not all, of them knew the meaning and the origin of the authorship: hence, Vattel.
Perhaps a much clearer understanding of Vattel can be gleaned from the plenitude of information from a common search for http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=vattel+law+of+nations&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
There are no examples of the writers or other Americans at the time using the term Natural Born in the Vattel sense. There ARE examples of them using it in the common law sense. There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that refers to Vattel (and he is not mentioned in the Constitution either).
DeleteHere are some examples of American writers at the time using Natural Born Citizen the way that it is used in the common law. For example, this from 1803:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, there is no reference to parents. No mention of parents at all. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state."
And this from 1829:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Vattel is undoubtedly a great guy, but one thing that HE did not do was to recommend that the leaders of a country be even citizens. There is nothing in The Law of Nations that recommends doing that. And, in fact, Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that doing that is a bad thing.
So, if the writers of the Constitution really followed Vattel, there would be no citizenship requirement for house, senate or president. Oh, and he recommended some things that we did not follow, like every country should have a state religion. So, if they really followed Vattel, they would have adopted that and not barred it from happening.
To be sure, if there were a letter or an article at the time saying "we should follow Vattel's definition of Natural Born" that would be a different matter. But there is no such letter and the use of the common law is frequent in the Constitution. And, in fact, six justices of the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born
Anonymous,
DeleteSeeing that you took your documentation from the Obama Kool-Aid Factory only discredits your posit.
By Common Law, a child takes on the Citizenship of the Father's country. In the case of Barack Obama, he would be British, because his father was from Kenya (a British colony). If it were not for the war of 1812, Barack could be conscripted into the British Navy according to Common Law. But because the founders believed in Natural Law, he is free to go about unhindered.
DeleteYeah and America has to bear the brunt of him running around unhindered.
DeleteFunny, very funny. No matter...this does NOT apply to Obama as he was born in Kenya no matter how many phony birth certificates he produces.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born in Kenya, or in fact in any foreign country, a question for you:
DeleteI’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.
So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?
Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?
All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.
Well, they never did. There is no such file.
So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?
Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?
The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Oh, and by the way, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that Obama was born in Kenya. That was the first of the birther lies. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii. And she said in another interview, with the Hartford Courtant newspaper, that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was IN A LETTER FROM HAWAII.
Anonymous,
DeleteSince you display your cowardice by posting under the assumed moniker of "Anonymous" I will discredit your obfuscation of the matter by your insertion of reductio ad absurdum.
It's a common tactic of The Left and Libturd Retards, straight out of the playbook from Saul Alinsky.
Your bullshit "facts" above don't hold water, and they're off topic.
I post a lot and this site allows anonymous posts.
DeleteYou can continue to believe in the tooth fairy if you want to, but there is absolutely no evidence that Obama or Obama's mother traveled in 1961, and there is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the confirmation of three Republican officials and the statement of the current director of health and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 (which at the time were sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and it only sent the notices for births in Hawaii--all these facts show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Not only is Anonymous off topic but what Anonymous posts is just out and out false! Traveling with a newborn baby in those days required NO such documentation, period. There is NO way to have gotten a passport for a newborn baby as passports were and still are applied for weeks and months BEFORE travel! A newborn baby back in the 60's could very easily have been brought to Hawaii with NO questions asked.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, Anonymous, have the courage, guts, and convictions to stand by your words by posting your real name and pic, otherwise your opinions carry no weight whatsoever. Only cowards hide behind phony names and icons.
Respectfully, Diane, you are wrong.
DeleteThe US Immigration and Naturalization Department (INS) did not then and does not now allow a child to be carried into the USA without a travel document, such as a passport. When children are born to US citizens overseas and they are to be taken to the USA, the parents have to get the child added to one of their passports--when they are overseas.
Do you imagine that a child could be carried from Africa, an obviously mixed-race child, without an official from the INS asking to see a document?
For Obama to have been born in Kenya. All these things would have had to have happened:
(1) Obama's mother would have had to gone to Kenya. But very few women traveled late in pregnancy in those days, and the number going to countries with Yellow Fever, like Kenya, was even lower.
(2) She would have had to have traveled alone. WND has shown by using the Freedom of Information Act that Obama's father was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
(3) She would have had to have traveled without any record of her being checked out of the USA by the INS.
(4) She would have had to have arrived in Kenya without any record in Kenya of her having arrived. (Or the Kenyan government would have to be part of the plot and that it was part of the plot from early 2008 when Obama began his run for president).
(4) She would have had to have given birth in Kenya without any record of that happening. ((Or the Kenyan government would have to be part of the plot and that it was part of the plot from early 2008 when Obama began his run for president).
(5) She would have had to have returned to the USA, carrying the child and somehow there is no record of her entering by the INS or of him entering. (There were no direct flights from Kenya to Hawaii in those days, so the check in on arrival would have been in New York, and the New York INS files are not missing.)
(6) She would have had to have lied about Obama's place of birth--and why should she? For all purposes except running for president a naturalized citizen is as good as a Natural Born one.
(7) She would have had to have lied AND gotten away with it, but we know that the officials in Hawaii did not accept unverified claims of birth at home and in such cases required witness statements.
(8) The long form birth certificate, which says that he was born in Kaipiolani Hospital would have to be false and could not exist in the files.
(9) The three Republican officials (including the former governor) and the current director of health would all have to be lying when they say that they have seen the original birth certificate in the files and that the facts on the birth certificate that Obama published are accurate.
These facts are true regardless of who I am, or for that matter, who you are.
Anonymous, I am exactly who I say I am, as I have NOTHING to hide and stand by my convictions always. And all your so-called facts above mean absolutely nothing as babies, or anyone for that matter, can be smuggled into the country if enough monies change hand. Obama's grandparents were influential people in Hawaii at that time and could easily have 'arranged' for their daughter to bring her baby here and have a phony birth certificate issued. And gee I wonder if I were to change the settings on my blog to NOT allow anonymous posts, will you still be posting here...that would require having the courage to stand by your convictions and use your real name and photo.
ReplyDeleteDiane Sori wrote: "And gee I wonder if I were to change the settings on my blog to NOT allow anonymous posts, will you still be posting here...that would require having the courage to stand by your convictions and use your real name and photo."
ReplyDeleteI dare ya! If you don't, I will! :-)
Re: "Obama's grandparents were influential people in Hawaii at that time and could easily have 'arranged' for their daughter to bring her baby here and have a phony birth certificate issued."
ReplyDeleteDream on. Obama's maternal grandfather was a furniture salesman (and he did not own the store). Obama's maternal grandmother became a bank vice president in 1971, but in 1961 she was not a vice president yet and was probably only a low-level administrator or a clerk. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Armour_Dunham)
Apparently they were Democrats, but the Republicans were in fact in charge in Hawaii when Obama was born. The governor of Hawaii at the time was a Republican.
Moreover, you have not accounted for the lack of evidence that Obama's mother left the country--which would be federal evidence, of course.
Nor have you explained why she would want to go to Kenya, when we know that Obama's father did not go, since he was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 according to WND.
You have not accounted for the lack of records of Obama's mother arriving in Kenya, Obama being born there, Obama's mother leaving Kenya, Obama getting a US travel document (such as being added to his mother's passport) or either of them being checked in by the INS after returning from Kenya (which would have been in New York, since there were no direct flights, and the New York INS files are not missing).
You CLAIM that Obama's family were "influential"--but the probably weren't, and if they were they still could not get a birth certificate with the doctor's name on it, and the delivery doctor's signature is on Obama's long form birth certificate.
ALL, and I repeat ALL, birth certificates produced by Obama or any of his minions have been proven to be false! And BTW, there IS records of Obama's mother giving birth to a baby boy in Kenya and those birth certificates have been proven to be legit. I guess you just haven't been keeping up with the news. i even posted about it her on my blog. That certificate could very well turn out to be the REAL birth certificate! Only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteAnd BTW, travel records were NOT as well kept as they are today as that was a pre-9/11 America. More things were done under the radar than they are today.
All, and I repeat ALL, of the people who have claimed that Obama's birth certificate is forged are people who hate Obama. None of them has shown their expertise, and none has shown that she or he is objective. The officials in Hawaii, who are the experts on whether a Hawaii birth certificate is forged, did not say that the short form was forged when the Republicans were in office, and they have not said that the long form is forged either.
ReplyDeleteOf the "Kenyan birth certificates" the most recent was obtained by a man called Lucas D. Smith, who is a convicted felon--one of whose crimes was forgery. Smith used US date formats on the "birth certificate" (month/day/year) when they use British formats in Kenya (day/month/year)--and Smith has refused to show that he even went to Kenya.
For Obama to have been born in Kenya, or in any country other than the USA, there still has to be explanation of why Obama's mother traveled late in pregnancy, when it was rare (despite Obama's father not traveling). There still has to be an explanation of how she could have traveled without a US INS check out record, or a Kenyan check-in record, or an INS record on her return and one for Obama.
These proofs that Obama's mother and Obama traveled in 1961 do not exist. On the other hand there was a birth certificate issued for Obama in Hawaii in 1961, and it is signed by a doctor, and the fact that it existed in 1961 is confirmed by the newspaper notices from the DOH and by the witness who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about hearing of a birth in Kapiolani Hospital to a woman named Stanley.
First Anonymous, and I see you're still hiding who you really are (coward), if you had bothered to keep up with the news, one of Obama's own lawyers has now said the birth certificate he issued was NOT real. One of his own lawyers is now saying it's a phony!!! I've even posted an article about that here on my blog. And two, Obama's mother was living in Kenya while pregnant, and gave birth in Kenya, and three days AFTER the birth, as pre-arranged, came back to America to 'register' baby 'bama' as having been born in Hawaii. I know you just love this muzzie usurping traitor but you need to understand that he WILL eventually be caught in his lies and when he does get caught AND is tried it's people like you who will be saying WTF...boy were we stupid!
ReplyDeleteRe: "one of Obama's own lawyers has now said the birth certificate he issued was NOT real."
ReplyDeleteDream on. Not even WND published that crazy report because it was just made up. Obama's lawyer never said it.
Re: "And two, Obama's mother was living in Kenya while pregnant, and gave birth in Kenya, and three days AFTER the birth, as pre-arranged, came back to America to 'register' baby 'bama' as having been born in Hawaii. "
There is absolutely no evidence that Obama's mother traveled outside the USA in 1961, and WND has proven that Obama's father was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama's mother arrived in Kenya or departed Kenya or obtained a travel document for Obama to allow him to enter the USA. There is no evidence that either Obama's mother or Obama was checked into the USA by the INS in 1961.
Obama has a birth certificate from Hawaii because he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii, which is shown on his birth certificate, and it has the signature of the delivery doctor on it, and the fact that Obama received a birth certificate from Hawaii in 1961 is confirmed by the birth notices in the Health Records Statistics sections of the newspapers, which were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii.
Re: "I know you just love this muzzie usurping traitor..."
Regardless of whether I love or hate, or you love or hate, the facts are still the facts. There is no proof that Obama's mother traveled outside the USA in 1961 (and it was highly unlikely that she did), and there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
And there is NO proof that she didn't. End of story.
ReplyDeleteThere is no proof that Obama's mother was not a quarterback for the New York Giants. When there is no proof of something, and it is a HIGHLY unlikely thing, the rational explanation is that it did not happen. Obama's mother was not a quarterback for the New York Giants, nor did she travel to Kenya.
DeleteWND has shown that Obama's father was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. So, for Obama's mother to have given birth in Kenya, she would have had to have gone there without him. How likely is that? How likely is it that she traveled at all? (Very few pregnant women did in those days). A grand total of 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961; of them only seven were US citizens (Note the INS document shown in this http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/born-in-africa-myth-crushed-under-weight-of-complexity/).
Yet you say that Obama's mother was one of the seven.
http://4peoplewhothink.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/the-belief-factor-by-dan-lynch/
Great job Diane!
ReplyDeleteThanks. :)
ReplyDeleteBasic logic: A tree is a plant but not all plants are trees. A natural born Citizen is a Citizen at birth but not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens. Read this essay for more details: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab-are-nbc-2/
ReplyDeleteCDR Kerchner (Ret)
Diane, awesome job! The Ron Paul people put out FALSE information all the time about Marco Rubio because they are soooooooo JEALOUS of him! They want everyone to love Ron Paul! Our party desperately needs Rubio to win this next election because we are losing too many Hispanics and younger voters to the Democrats! I truly believe that Marco can save this country! VIVA RUBIO!!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks and I agree with all you said. BTW, I was one of Marco's earliest supporters when he first ran for Senator.
DeleteVIVA RUBIO 2016!!!!
ReplyDeleteI so agree! :)
Delete