Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate

This whole "Birther" argument amazes me...nothing more self serving then a politician using tax payer money and time to try and prove something like, the American President wasn't born where he said he was, despite the overwhelming evidence and credible witnesses saying he was. Shouldn't these people be working to fix the economy!

Even more disturbing is that 18% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim, despite growing up Christian, attending a christian church and raising his family christian. Even if he was Muslim, WHO CARES!!!!

I don't know if its the poor education system in the US, although many of my American friends are knowledgeable, but something has to give with this stupidity. The US is being laughed at over this and how much coverage it gets. My two cents...

Argue on!

Originally posted by Tiste
This whole "Birther" argument amazes me...

Your entire post amazes me.

nothing more self serving then a politician using tax payer money and time to try and prove something like, the American President wasn't born where he said he was,

What politician are you referring to? Abercrombie? He's a friend of Obama's and the family, he was trying to settle the whole issue but stirred it up instead.
'He's searched everywhere using his powers ... there is no proof he was born in Hawaii'

"Although Abercrombie is an Obama lover, he's the first to say he's concerned this is really going to be an issue during the re-election," Evans said.

Now why would you say that's self serving? It seems like the opposite of self serving to me...there's nothing in it for Abercrombie other than to help out his friend Obama. However some have suggested that if there was corruption involved regarding the birth certificate, Abercrombie may be trying to insulate himself from it by showing that it occurred before he took office, I don't know about that but whatever the reason, the whole episode with Abercrombie is bizarre.

despite the overwhelming evidence and credible witnesses saying he was.

What witnesses? There's only one witness I'm aware of and that's Fukino who said she personally saw the birth certificate, and the certification of live birth is a confirmation of that. Abercrombie said he was going to find the birth certificate but a friend of his said he never found it. And Abercrombie was a friend of the family and remembers the president as a little boy in Hawaii, but he doesn't remember him being born there, apparently nobody does. They are looking for witnesses to that so if you know of any, who are they?

Farah had already issued a $10,000 reward for anyone who can provide evidence of having been at Obama's birth.

Shouldn't these people be working to fix the economy!

What people? Abercrombie? At best he might have a small influence on the economy in Hawaii, not the rest of the US.

Even more disturbing is that 18% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim, despite growing up Christian, attending a christian church and raising his family christian. Even if he was Muslim, WHO CARES!!!!

Off-topic and if your point is "who cares" then why bring up an off-topic question?

I don't know if its the poor education system in the US, although many of my American friends are knowledgeable, but something has to give with this stupidity.

What's taught in the education system is the constitution. I do agree there have been some claims showing ignorance of the constitution but much of the information related to this constitutional eligibility question isn't something covered by educational institutions.

I think it all boils down to how much one trusts Fukino. If Fukino is incapable of making a mistake, and Fukino claims to have seen the original birth certificate and it proves he's natural born, then no more information should be needed. However both the former governor Lingle and the current governor Abercrombie have brought Fukino's credibility into question, not as adversaries, but as friends.

The US is being laughed at over this and how much coverage it gets.

I've laughed at some things that happened in countries outside the US, so I can't complain if countries outside the US have reason to laugh at the US. I read that laughing might make people healthier, so consider it a US contribution to improving world health.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What witnesses? There's only one witness I'm aware of and that's Fukino

Unless you are a close relative of Obama, you are not a possible witness. I don't recall any witnesses for previous presidents births, neither do I require one. A backround check and state verification is all I require. I will never know personally as to whether the president was born in this country or not. Never have and never will, neither will you.

Farah had already issued a $10,000 reward for anyone who can provide evidence of having been at Obama's birth.

What is this suppose to mean? Farah is looking for attention as usual, he has been riding rightwing conspiracy theories for some time now. He is not a credible individual to reference, considering his past partisan articles regarding Clinton and Kerry. It still astounds me that you continiously use Farah or keyes as references in this thread.

What people? Abercrombie? At best he might have a small influence on the economy in Hawaii, not the rest of the US.

Abercrombie has a state to watch over, unfortunately he is greatly confused as to his priorities.

Off-topic

It's not off topic. If you are going to use a poll as a reference to your concerns, another poll in comparison is very relevant in this discussion. People believe many things, 68% of folks believed the war on Iraq was justified and the WMD story was credible. Polls are not often reliable and this was his or her point. It's relevant to me.

I think it all boils down to how much one trusts Fukino. If Fukino is incapable of making a mistake, and Fukino claims to have seen the original birth certificate and it proves he's natural born, then no more information should be needed. However both the former governor Lingle and the current governor Abercrombie have brought Fukino's credibility into question, not as adversaries, but as friends.

Where have they brought Fukino's credibility into question? You failed to prove anything to us here.

You stated the governor "contradicted" Fukino. The governor named the hospital Obama was born in, Fukino never stated the hospital Obama was born in neither did she deny any such thing. The governor made an incorrect statement claiming that Fukino verified the hospital which she did not. There is no indication that the governor brought Fukino's credibility into question, rather that the governor, who does not authority over Obama's birth records as Fukino does, was incorrect.

Abercrombie? I'm not sure how he brought Fukino's credibility into question. Where did he contradict Fukino again? If you were referencing the WND article that claimed the current governor could not find Obama's birth certificate, that article is false. He never made any such statement or claim, neither does he have access to Obama's records. You should know this full well since have repeated time and time again that Fukino is the only individual with that kind of access. Neither governor can fully confirm because they do not have access to Obama's original birth certificate.

If...completely hypothetical, Obama was born in a different country, where are those witnesses??? I guess when it comes down to it, If Obama was born on the moon, would it matter? I don't think everything he has done has been good for the country, but given the hand he was dealt, him and his administration have done a pretty good job.

This whole birther movement started with some quacks who have a hate for Obama and would do anything to get rid of him.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'm already out of the class, it was during the fall semester and he only mentioned it to us on the first day. He told us that Obama had all of his records sealed and they cant be opened until after he's out of office. He then explained to us all of the requirements to be the president, and how Obama isn't eligible.. He was the senator in MA and said that if anyone had ever questioned his eligibility to be a senator all they had to do was go to his hometown and look up his birth records.

That's all the proof I need.

reply to post by SIKKAthanMOST


Can you give us just a little more to go on? I just checked your original post and you are talking about a FORMER senator, not a sitting one. What would be the point in checking their eligibility? Is he suggesting that years after Obama is out of office might be an OK time to look into this for him? I find random claims hard to just "believe." It seems like you are saying you were told this so it must be true. Can you help me believe such things? I am not sure how one goes about sealing "all their records" anyway. I need to understand how you seal records that are not available to the public as well as what exactly falls under the category "all."

Any light you can shed on why you believe what you were told and consequently why we should as well would be great. I guess what I am getting at is...why do you just believe what you are told about Obama's records from a community college adjunct economics teacher?

Want to know about bloodlines heres a link: uncensored.co.nz...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What witnesses? There's only one witness I'm aware of and that's Fukino

Unless you are a close relative of Obama, you are not a possible witness. I don't recall any witnesses for previous presidents births, neither do I require one.

I didn't claim you required anything.

I was responding to the post by Tiste saying "despite the overwhelming evidence and credible witnesses saying he was." so I was asking Tiste what credible witnesses Tiste was referring to.

You don't seem to know either.

I shouldn’t keep posting in these threads, but it’s like watching a trainwreck, I can’t look away.

Originally posted by micpsi
Repeating the same elementary errors does not make it true. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii (no evidence has ever been presented that he was), that does not make him a natural-born American because, to qualify as such, one needs to have two American parents, whereas Obama's father was a British Kenyan. Being a legal American citizen is not enough to qualify someone as a presidential candidate. The American Constitution stipulates that one has to a "natural-born American," not just an American citizen. Your arguments therefore miss the point.

Speaking of elementary errors, do you have citation for that? What are the legal principles and jurisprudence you are relying on for your assertion that a natural-born citizen is “one [who] needs to have two American parents”?

Don’t bother linking to any articles on WND or some other crap like that, I want, for example, the Supreme Court cases that support your claim and the relevant citations. Thank you.

You conveniently ignore the fact (or perhaps you are ignorant of it) that his Indonesian school registration form indicates that his nationality was Indonesian, which means his mother and stepfather must have arranged for their son to give up his American citizenship

“Must have arranged...” I love how these wild claims and speculation are considered facts in Birtherland.

US law doesn’t allow parents to renounce their children’s citizenship. This has been addressed ad nauseaum, so you are either purposely ignoring that aspect of the US citizenship statutes or you are honestly ignorant about it. In any event this doesn’t help your argument.

What was AMERICAN law is totally irrelevant. What counts is what Indonesian law was at the time he went to school in that country.

Whoa, talk about elementary errors. You clearly don’t know even the most basic aspects of the law.

Here’s an hypothetical to help you realize how nonsensical your claim is, although I wouldn’t bet any money on it: Imagine you visited a foreign country. For some reason their legislature shortly thereafter decides to enact laws that would grant citizenship to anyone who has visited the country in the last year. Under your rationale, you are no longer a natural-born citizen.

Doesn’t take a lawyer to understand how this is not tenable.

In case you are wondering, or are thinking of replying with a “where’s your proof” post, know that, yes, I have Supreme Court citations and the relevant US Code statutes to back up all of my claims. I await your response.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Yes a former senator, i did make sure to include that. He wasn't suggesting anything he straight up told us he knew Obama wasn't born in the USA. if records aren't available to the public, wouldn't that mean that they are sealed? I was told by a source, who in my eyes is someone credible. It wasn't an economics class, it was called American National Government. Philip Travis was in office when Obama was elected. I don't see how that wouldn't be enough credibility.

Originally posted by SIKKAthanMOST
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Yes a former senator, i did make sure to include that.

Yes, originally I missed that but as you can see, I know exactly who he is.

He wasn't suggesting anything he straight up told us he knew Obama wasn't born in the USA.

So what? He made a claim. Actually, he did not make a claim. You claim he made a claim.
Hmmmm..... Some internet poster claims someone else said something. Wow, you don't get better evidence than that do ya?
Tell me why I should believe you that he said that. Then tell me why you believe him for just saying it.

if records aren't available to the public, wouldn't that mean that they are sealed?

How does that follow? Your medical records are not available to the public. Please tell me what steps exactly you have taken to have them sealed and what does that cost?

I was told by a source, who in my eyes is someone credible. It wasn't an economics class, it was called American National Government. Philip Travis was in office when Obama was elected. I don't see how that wouldn't be enough credibility.

What does him being in office at the time do to lend credibility to a claim he made? Are you trying to say people that hold office are not wrong or do not lie? Do you believe anyone in office? Obama is in office too and he says he is legitimate. Quite a quandry you are in given the standards you have for credibility.

Phil Travis is in office so his claim is gold!
Obama is in office but his word....eh...turns your skin green.

Please convince me.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
You claim he made a claim.
Hmmmm..... .

Ya,,, I love this

"OOUCH you're hurting me"

it's too good

I am telling you THIS #%#% show is mission impossible, Gandhi would get murderous no doubt

Originally posted by aptness
I shouldn’t keep posting in these threads, but it’s like watching a trainwreck, I can’t look away.

Originally posted by micpsi
Repeating the same elementary errors does not make it true. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii (no evidence has ever been presented that he was), that does not make him a natural-born American because, to qualify as such, one needs to have two American parents, whereas Obama's father was a British Kenyan. Being a legal American citizen is not enough to qualify someone as a presidential candidate. The American Constitution stipulates that one has to a "natural-born American," not just an American citizen. Your arguments therefore miss the point.

Originally posted by aptness
Speaking of elementary errors, do you have citation for that? What are the legal principles and jurisprudence you are relying on for your assertion that a natural-born citizen is “one [who] needs to have two American parents”?

Originally posted by micpsi
Have you heard of search engines? My statement can be verified from legal sources within five minutes. I am surprised you were ignorant of this fact.

Originally posted by aptness
Don’t bother linking to any articles on WND or some other crap like that, I want, for example, the Supreme Court cases that support your claim and the relevant citations. Thank you.

Originally posted by micpsi
"Supreme Court cases"? We don't need such cases. This is common legal knowledge. Do your own homework.

Originally posted by micpsi
You conveniently ignore the fact (or perhaps you are ignorant of it) that his Indonesian school registration form indicates that his nationality was Indonesian, which means his mother and stepfather must have arranged for their son to give up his American citizenship

Originally posted by aptness
“Must have arranged...” I love how these wild claims and speculation are considered facts in Birtherland.

Originally posted by micpsi
Hardly a speculation. More a logical deduction. If a law states that dual citizenship is disallowed and a legal form states that Obama had Indonesian citizenship, one can only deduce that his American citizenship was renounced. Try exercising some logic.

Originally posted by aptness
US law doesn’t allow parents to renounce their children’s citizenship. This has been addressed ad nauseaum, so you are either purposely ignoring that aspect of the US citizenship statutes or you are honestly ignorant about it. In any event this doesn’t help your argument.

Originally posted by micpsi
Yes, they can, provided the child demonstrates that he understands the process and is not under duress. I quote from Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)):
"Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship."
travel.state.gov...

Originally posted by micpsi
What was AMERICAN law is totally irrelevant. What counts is what Indonesian law was at the time he went to school in that country.

Originally posted by aptness
Whoa, talk about elementary errors. You clearly don’t know even the most basic aspects of the law.

Here’s an hypothetical to help you realize how nonsensical your claim is, although I wouldn’t bet any money on it: Imagine you visited a foreign country. For some reason their legislature shortly thereafter decides to enact laws that would grant citizenship to anyone who has visited the country in the last year. Under your rationale, you are no longer a natural-born citizen.

Originally posted by micpsi
Nope. Your example is not analogous to that faced by Obama's parents. Obama's parents were forced to relinquish their son's American citizenship so that he could enter an Indonesian school. The registration form indicating his Indonesian citizenship indicates this must have happened. They had to obey INDONESIAN LAW. Geddit?

Originally posted by aptness
Doesn’t take a lawyer to understand how this is not tenable.

Originally posted by micpsi
Doesn't take a lawyer to understand your argument is false.

Originally posted by aptness
In case you are wondering, or are thinking of replying with a “where’s your proof” post, know that, yes, I have Supreme Court citations and the relevant US Code statutes to back up all of my claims. I await your response.

Originally posted by micpsi
No, you don't. I have already posted one legal statute proving that Americans CAN arrange for their children to denounce their citizenship provided the latter understand it and are not under duress. This contradicts your bogus claim. Your claims are just bluff and fluff.

Obama is not a natural-born American because his father was not an American citizen:


Obama is also known to have traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. I don't know how you can manage to get an Indonesian passport unless you are an Indonesian citizen.

As the law of the time in Indonesia disallowed dual citizenship, it is clear to all but the must stubborn Obama supporters that Obama must have given up his American citizenship in order:
1. to register as an Indonesian in an Indonesian school;
2. to travel on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan.

This means that Obama is either still Indonesian or now a naturalized American. In either case, he was ineligible to become president of the United States of America.

Originally posted by micpsi
it is clear to all but the must stubborn Obama supporters that Obama must have given up his American citizenship in order:
1. to register as an Indonesian in an Indonesian school;
2. to travel on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan.

In the USA, you can get a halfway decent identity with a new name for $1000.

There are some alternatives to renouncing US citizenship, such as making false claims to Indonesian officials, bribing Indonesian officials, creating false documentation in Indonesia, none of which would have required renouncing US citizenship. After all the guy who was born in the US was Barack Obama, but the kid in Indonesia was named Barry Soetoro. I don't know what the corruption level is in Indonesia but in some countries if you bribe the right officials you can get away with faking identities.

Unfortunately so little is known about Barry Soetoro that these are just unanswered questions, but I can't assume Barry renounced his US citizenship if lying on some application form might have worked just as well.

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look www.wnd.com...

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Hmmm. Accidentally erased my response to you so let me just try this.
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Where is the documentation to show that Obama's name was ever officially or legally changed even once?

Originally posted by micpsi
Have you heard of search engines? My statement can be verified from legal sources within five minutes. I am surprised you were ignorant of this fact. "Supreme Court cases"? We don't need such cases. This is common legal knowledge. Do your own homework.

“We don’t need [Supreme Court] cases”? This shows the lack of understanding you have of US jurisprudence. And I’m sure the WND and birther blogs is what you consider “legal sources.”

The birthright citizenship principle is established law, in common law, since at least 1608 when, in what is called the Calvin’s Case, Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in England, and later Lord Chief Justice of England, noted that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King.

A person born within the King’s dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King's protection. All persons — except children of diplomats and children of hostile troops during invasion — born in the King’s dominion were natural-born subjects.

In the 1898 case Wong Kim Ark the US Supreme Court explained this common law principle and reiterated that it was the underlying principle controlling citizenship in the United States as well. From the opinion, the Court explains the principle—

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

The Court further explains—

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The Court then notes that it is the law of the United States as well—

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England (...) We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

I just quoted and cited legal cases and principles, existent for centuries, that contradict your claim, so I reiterate the question: what is the legal basis to support the claim that a natural-born citizen is one born to 2 US citizen parents? What are the cases the support that claim?

Originally posted by micpsi
I have already posted one legal statute proving that Americans CAN arrange for their children to denounce their citizenship provided the latter understand it and are not under duress.

Do you have proof this is what happened? No. You admittedly acknowledge that it’s your deduction only—

Originally posted by micpsi
Hardly a speculation. More a logical deduction.

Originally posted by micpsi
The registration form indicating his Indonesian citizenship indicates this must have happened.

The Indonesian school registration form indicates that his parents wrote down Indonesian citizenship, yes.

Didn’t you just quote a State Department website noting the renunciation had to be made to a US diplomatic or consular officer? Where is the US Department of State document confirming his renunciation of US citizenship? Until you have that you don’t have proof.

You argue that his parents or grandparents lied to the authorities in the United States about where Obama was born, but apparently, you accept as irrefutable proof what was written on an Indonesian school form.

Gotta love the birther double standards.

This contradicts your bogus claim. Your claims are just bluff and fluff.

And what you say is gospel, right... as evidenced by your lack of understanding of US jurisprudence.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Where is the documentation to show that Obama's name was ever officially or legally changed even once?

That sounds like a birther question, "where's the documentation on this guy?" The birthers would also like to know.

Much documentation is not available, though we have a school registration form available. The passport documentation for Obama's mother should be available, but an application for a known passport in 1965 for her is not available (Officials claim the 1965 records were destroyed, how convenient). The 1968 passport amendment is available, and lists her son with an Indonesian name: Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah). This is an official document:

www.scribd.com...

This is the only explanation I could find for the name Soebarkah:

Native Indonesian: “Soebarkah” most likely name given to Obama upon adoption by Indonesian Stepfather

SHARON: So on that form that we’ve all seen where it says “Barack Hussein Obama” then “(Soebarkah),” you believe Soebarkah is a given name.

SAM: The only reason he would be given a name which would go on an official form is if the name was given to him officially.

If you've got a better explanation, I'm all ears, but according to that explanation the name Soebarkah is probably an official name on what is definitely an official form.

We know he went by the name Barry Soetoro from the school registration form on this snopes site:

www.snopes.com...
Scroll a little more than halfway down to "variations".

But the legality of using that name or whether it was an "official" change is anybody's guess.

The Snopes site makes the same point I was trying to make in my previous post:

Lolo Soetoro's putatively listing his stepson's nationality as Indonesian on a school registration form does not in itself demonstrate that Barack Obama was officially regarded as an Indonesian citizen by the government of that country.

In other words, even though they listed him as an Indonesian citizen on that form, it doesn't mean it's "official" and just because they list his name as Barry Soetoro doesn't mean it's "official" since I would argue a school registration form isn't an "official" document from a legal perspective, though the school may feel it's an official form for the school and some have claimed it's official.

But the passport amendment is definitely an official document.

Originally posted by micpsi
Obama is not a natural-born American because his father was not an American citizen:
Obama is also known to have traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

And just what proof do you have that he travelled to Pakistan on a Indonesian passport? None at all, just a lie from a birther site.Why do you persist with that lie?