Visit MilitaryChronicle.com

Military Chronicle is a new channel in the ROKU.com channel store.
History is preserved in this channel for all to see. Description: Historical Films,
Military Documentaries/Movies. A Military Chronicle Of ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE
And MARINES. US History Of Combat On Land, Air And At Sea. The US Military As
Documented By Military Cameramen. MilitaryChronicle.com

Friday, May 28, 2010

If obama was born outside of the US he became an illegal alien at birth and for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen

This information is hard to find on the web. The government only wants you to see the latest revisions of U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS.

What is imposrtant is the law that was in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth to his parents. The law in 1961.

...........................................................................................

U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.


"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".


1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).


1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).


1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.


"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."


1878 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Same general provisions as 1855 Act).


1907 Act of March 2, 1907, Section 6, 34 Stat. 1228, 1229.


"That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of section nineteen hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the protection of this Government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority."


1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.


"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."


1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.


"Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.


(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham was born Nov 29, 1942. Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 as his undocumented "cerfication of live birth" shows. Obama was born 18 years 8 months after his mother was born.

Obama’s "American citizen parent", Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

Obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for 33 years until The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 was revised. On this date obama became a US citizen but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

This makes obama a RETROACTIVE US citizen. This also makes obama a FRAUD because he said he was born in Hawaii at birth. The "certification of live birth" obama has presented to the world is issued to persons who are not born in hospitals and most likely were born outside of the US. This is why his "birth certification" does not list a hospital, doctor or registrar name. Story Reports

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).


"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.


(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.


(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."


1956 Fee v. Dulles (236 F.2nd 855 (C.A. 7, 1956), (355 U.S. 61)). A child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934, who acquired U.S. citizenship through one citizen parent had to comply with certain conditions for establishing American residence in order to retain his American citizenship. In Fee v. Dulles, the lower courts upheld the original administrative position that a person who had not complied with the conditions prescribed by previous statutes had lost his citizenship and derived no benefit from the more generous retention provisions of the 1952 act. However, upon consideration of this issue when it reached the Supreme Court the Solicitor General confessed error, taking the position that a person who could comply with the terms of section 301 (b) and (c) would retain his American citizenship, even though he had not fulfilled similar provisions of the earlier statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and thus adopted the view projected in the Solicitor General's confession of error.


1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:


"That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940".


1957 Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644), provides as follows:


"Section 16. In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence."


1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.


See also: Wolf v Brownell (253 F.2nd 141 - (C.A. 9, 1958)-certiori denied (358 U.S. 859)). and D'Alessio v. Lehmann (289 F.2nd 371 - (C.A. 6, 1961)-certiori denied (368 U.S. 822)).


1964 Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163 (1964)). Mrs. Schneider, a German national by birth, acquired United States citizenship derivatively through her mother's naturalization in the United States. She came to the USA as a small child with her parents and remained there until she finished college. She then went abroad for graduate work, was engaged to a German national, married in Germany, and stayed in residence there. She declared that she had no intention of returning to the United States. In 1959, she was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that she had lost her United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Paragraph 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Paragraph 1484 (a)(1), by continuous residence for three years in a foreign state of which she was formerly a national. The Court, by a five-to-three vote, held the statute violative of Fifth Amendment due process because there was no like restriction against foreign residence by native-born citizens. The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan and White) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution's distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.


1966 Act of November 6, 1966 (80 Stat. 1322), amended Section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to read as follows:


"Section 301 (a) (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided*, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.


1967 Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253 (1967)). Mr. Afroyim, a Polish national by birth, immigrated to the United States at age 19 and after 14 years in the USA acquired United States citizenship by naturalization. Twenty-four years later he went to Israel and voted in a political election there. In 1960, he was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Section 349 (a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. Section 1481(a)(5), by his foreign voting. The Court, by a five-to-four vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizenship was significant; that Congress has no "general" power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent," (387 U.S. at 257); that Congress' power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824)); and that the "undeniable purpose" of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred "citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure" and "to put citizenship beyond the power of any government unit to destroy," (387 U.S. at 263). Perez v. Brownell (356 U.S. 44 (1958)), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled. In dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark, Stewart and White) took issue with the Court's claim of support in the legislative history, elucidated the Marshall dictum, and observed that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to expatriate on permissible grounds consistent with "other relevant commands" of the Constitution. (387 U.S. at 292).


1971 Rogers v. Bellei (401 U.S. 815 (1971)). Bellei challenged the constitutionality of Section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. A three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, held that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the country on Bellei, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States", and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary or unlawful. Justice Black filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas and Marshall joined. Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Douglas joined.


1972 Act of October 27, 1972 (87 Stat. 1289), amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by changing section 301 (b) to the new text below; by repealing Section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957; and by adding the new section 301 (d) below.


"Section 301 (b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless (1) he shall come to the United States and be continuously physically present therein for a period of not less than two years between the ages of fourteen years and twenty-eight years; or (2) the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years. In the administration of this subsection absences from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence."


"Section 301 (d) Nothing contained in subsection (b) as amended, shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person who has come to the United States prior to the effective date of this subsection and who, whether before or after the effective date of this subsection, immediately following such coming complies or shall comply with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsection (b) prior to its amendment and the repeal of section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957."


1978 Act of October 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 1046) repealed subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, effective as of October 10, 1978. It also struck out "(a)" after "Section 301" and redesignated paragraphs (1) through (7) as subsections (a) through (g) respectively.


1980 Vance v. Terrazas: upheld the constitutionality of Section 349(c) of the INA. Under this provision, the party claiming that citizenship has been lost has the burden of proving such loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, a person who commits a statutory act of expatriation is presumed to have committed the act voluntarily, but the presumption may be overcome upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act was not performed voluntarily. The Court expressly rejected the contention that expatriation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.


The Supreme Court reaffirmed and explained its holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that in order to find expatriation, "the trier of fact must...conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship". The court declared that it would not be consistent with Afroyim "to treat the expatriating acts specified in the statute as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen". As the Court explained: "In the last analysis expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct."


1986 Act of November 14, 1986 (PL 99-653) amended section 301(g) (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) by striking out "ten years, at least five" and inserting in lieu thereof "five years, at least two". This reduced the prior residence time in the United States necessary for a U.S. citizen married to an alien to be able to automatically transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad from the former period of ten years, five of which after the age of 14, to five years, two of which after the age of fourteen years.


This act also: (a) amended Sec 340(d) of the code reducing the period of time after naturalization before a naturalized citizen can reside abroad from five years to one year; (b) amended section 349 of the code so that a child who obtained a foreign nationality upon the application of the parent before the child reached age 21 years, no longer has to return to the United States to establish permanent residence in the United States prior to age 25; (c) amends section 349 so that a U.S: citizen who is a national of a foreign country and who performs an expatriating act under the provisions of section 349 is no longer presumed to have acted "voluntarily" if the individual has resided in this foreign country more than ten years. This reinforces the importance of the individual's intent in performing such an act as a deliberate intent to lose U.S. citizenship, rather than a mere automatic presumption that such intent existed.


1994 The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended several sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and took effect on March 1, 1995.


Amended Section 322 permits children born overseas of a U.S. citizen parent to be eligible for a certificate of citizenship if either their U.S. citizen parent or a U.S. citizen grandparent had been physically present in the United States for at least five years, two of which after the age of 14, prior to the child's birth abroad. This provision also applies to a child adopted abroad.


Amended Section 301 (h) gives back U.S. citizenship to a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


Amended Section 324 (d) (1) allows former U.S. citizens who lost their citizenship through failure to meet the former conditions of physical presence in the United States to retain their citizenship to regain their citizenship without having to file an application for naturalization.


The law also allows U.S. citizen parents to apply for U.S. citizenship from abroad for their foreign-born children under the age of 18, provided the child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission when the citizenship is granted.


1998 In Miller vs Albright (decided April 22, 1998), the Supreme Court in a 6:3 decision held that it was constitutional for Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1409) to give U.S. citizen mothers more rights to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad than to U.S. citizen fathers. There were three separate opinions on the majority side and two opinions on the dissenting side.


2000 PL 106-365, "The Child Citizenship Act of 2000" (or Delahunt Act) signed on 30 October 2000, and which takes effect on 27 February 2001 modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by making it easier for minor children of US citizens (both foreign-born and adopted abroad) to become citizens of the US. The law has the following effects: (a) A child adopted abroad becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident; and (b) A child born abroad to parents, one or both of whom are US citizens, but who is not recognized as a US citizen for various reasons, can also benefit from the new law, i.e. that child also becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident. In the case of US parents residing permanently abroad with no immediate intention of returning to the USA with their children (either natural or adopted), it is also possible to file from abroad for immediate naturalization under a revised Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also modified by the new law). This procedure enables Americans abroad to obtain US citizenship for their children, not otherwise eligible to be citizens at birth abroad, through a special naturalization procedure, which does not require that they move back to live permanently in the United States. All the papers are filed from abroad, and the American parent and child/children then travel to the chosen District Office in the United States to finalize the process on the day of a previously arranged appointment.

Kenyan Birth Allegations


U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

10 comments:

TellerIP said...

Re: "if obama were born outside of the US."

If my aunt had male sex organs, she would be my uncle. Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on the document were twice confirmed by the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii.

The National Review said: The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

Story Reports said...

In 1961 all you needed was a drivers license or telephone bill to prove you lived in Hawaii. The form obama displays as proof of birth could have been ordered in the mail up to a year after his birth. Hawaiian law allowed people to get a delayed "certification of live birth". This document is only as good as the information that was put down on the application when it was requested. This is why obama's "certification of live birth" contains NO hospital name, NO doctor name and No Registrar name.

Its crazy to believe the "certification of live birth" proves he was born in Hawaii.

It just proves someone bought a stamp and sent in an application for a "certification of live birth" after obama was born.

If obama had been born in a hospital the hospital would have generated a "certificate of live birth", a long form detailed birth certificate.

I don't believe obama has one because if he did this would be detailed verification that he is a US citizen and was born in Hawaii.

Obama has failed to produce a hospital generated "certificate of live birth".

Why? This would be a simple thing to do. Obama says he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Obama can't prove it. Its just empty talk as usual.

Any offical can say anything. The ONLY thing that will prove obama is not a liar is documentation such as a "certificate of live birth" which has the hospital name, doctors name and registrars name on the offical document.

Obama has proved nothing but that his parents, himself or a relative bought a stamp and sent in an application for a "certification of live birth". That was the best he could do. The fact obama has a short form indicates he doesn't have the long form "certificate of live birth", the real deal.

Obama is a FRAUD. I believe he was born out of the US because all he can show is a short form. The short form is all you get for a stamp and application in Hawaii.

It is offical. Offical information that cannot be verified by anyone.

What good is offical information if no one in America can verify obama was born in hawaii.

The Hawaiian officals only said that they had seen some documents. This proves only that they had seen
something. Officals in Hawaii didn't say they had seen and verified a long form "certification of live birth" that was obama's.

Obama didn't need to be smuggled into the US. A stamp and an application "hoodwinked" America before the election. Hawaiian officals have never certified obama was born in a hospital in Oahu.

Offical statement confirm nothing. Its only another opinion that can't be verified by the American public.

I think you have been "hoodwinked" by obama.

TellerIP said...

You said: "In 1961 all you needed was a drivers license or telephone bill to prove you lived in Hawaii. "

Answer, but that did NOT prove that you were born in Hawaii.

You said: "The form obama displays as proof of birth could have been ordered in the mail up to a year after his birth."

Answer. No it couldn't. A delayed certificate or certification of birth always says on it "delayed."

You also said: "This is why obama's "certification of live birth" contains NO hospital name, NO doctor name and No Registrar name."

Answer. BALONEY. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. It is what everyone in Hawaii has been getting since 2001 and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the military. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and ever since 2001 Hawaii stopped sending out copies of the original birth certificate (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

As you can see, the Certification is the OFFICIAL birth certificate, and Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate to anyone. Yes, Obama's family once had an original birth certificate, but obviously they lost it because in 2007 Obama asked Hawaii for his birth certificate, and Hawaii sent him the Certification, which is what it sends to everyone. The reason that it does not have a doctors' name or hospital name on it is because it is a short-form birth certificate. Many states have adopted short-form birth certificates.

At the time of Obama's birth in 1961 it was not possible for a person born outside of Hawaii to have her or his birth even registered in Hawaii. But Obama's birth is, of course, registered in Hawaii, and it was registered in 1961--which is confirmed by the announcements in the newspapers shortly after the date. The announcements, by the way, were generated by the government and sent out to newspapers but only for births in Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.

Hawaii does not now--and did not in 1961--allow a birth document of any kind to be issued that says on it "born in Hawaii" unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. Obama's birth certificate says "born in Hawaii" on it, and the facts on it--that he was born in Hawaii in 1961--were twice confirmed by the officials of the department of health of Hawaii and once by the governor of Hawaii.

And, there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2170432/posts).

Obama's Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya. She clearly said that he was born in Hawaii. AND, there is no documentary proof (aside from forged birth certificates) that Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii.

Story Reports said...

You said: "In 1961 all you needed was a drivers license or telephone bill to prove you lived in Hawaii. "

Answer, but that did NOT prove that you were born in Hawaii.

You HIT the nail on the head. Obama's "certification of live birth" was not obtained from a hospital. The hospital provides a "certificate of live birth" with a docotrs name, signature, hospital name, Parents names, signatures and registrar's name and signature.

All this is missing from obama's claim he is a citizen of Hawaii.

The short form obama has presented to the world is (1) The total sum of information on file in Hawaii or (2) Information from an ammended application for a revised "certification of live birth"

(1) If it is the total sum of information available in Hawaii from 1961 it would be because a drivers license/application for a "certification of live birth" was generated with very limited information. Why was this done if obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii as obama claims?

(2) If it is an attempt by obama to ammend his original "certificate of live birth" this would explain why the form does NOT say ACCEPTED by registrar which would make it a valid document. It just says FILED by registrar.

If Hawaiian officals can't verify what is on the ammendment application they will not accept the ammendment. It appears Hawaiian officals have never accepted obama's ammendment(s) to an original "certificate of live birth"

This would be because a "certificate of live birth" is generated when a child is born in a hospital. If obama was never born in an Hawaiian hospital there would be NO original "long form" "certificate of live birth" to ammend!

In his own book, "Dreams of My Father" (1995, page 26), Obama says that he used to entertain himself by reading his own birth certificate when he was a teenager. He refuses to publish it or even to show it to authorities.

TellerIP said...

I am glad that you are quoting "Dreams from My Father" because it shows that Obama's mother DID NOT HAVE A PASSPORT IN 1961.

It clearly says that Obama's mother and Obama applied for their passports when they were getting ready to go to Indonesia in 1966 or 1967.

You said: ""Dreams of My Father" (1995, page 26), Obama says that he used to entertain himself by reading his own birth certificate when he was a teenager. He refuses to publish it or even to show it to authorities."

Answer: I am surprised that you do not understand the word "lost." It is a four-letter word, and many people use it. Losing things happens all the time, and birth certificates are frequently lost--especially by people who travel a lot. I lost mine, and I applied for a copy, so do many people.

In 2007 Obama applied for a new birth certificate from Hawaii, and Hawaii sent him the short-form birth certificate, which is what it has sent out to everyone since 2001. Hawaii does not send out the original birth certificate anymore. So Obama does not have it and cannot get it.

But the new short-form birth certificate is the official birth certificate, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the two top officials of the Department of Health and the Department of Vital Records, and confirmed again by the governor of Hawaii.

That is how birth certificates work these days, a clerk looks into a file (which is what happened to Obama in 2007), reads the original document in the file, fills in the computer form, and a laser copy is generated. In Hawaiis' case, the Certification is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the Branches of the military.

As the Wall Street Journal said:

"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

By the way, hospital birth certificates are not official birth certificates. Official birth certificates have to be issued by governments.

The US State Department does not accept hospital birth certificates, for one reason being that there are thousands of different hospitals and their formats vary. It accepts only government birth certificates, and in Hawaii's case it accepts the Certification of Live Birth.

TellerIP said...

You also said:

"Obama didn't need to be smuggled into the US."

Only if he was born IN the US. If he were born outside of the USA he would have had to have been smuggled in, unless he had a US government document showing that he was authorized to enter the USA (such as a US visa on a foreign passport or a US passport issued overseas that included him by name). Such a document would have been found by now.

Obama was not born outside of the USA. His Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that he was born in Hawaii. Hawaii did not issue birth certificates for people born outside of Hawaii in 1961.

Story Reports said...

"I am glad that you are quoting "Dreams from My Father" because it shows that Obama's mother DID NOT HAVE A PASSPORT IN 1961."

Obama made up much of "dreams of my father".

Wow ya got me! I have not researched the possibility of a passport for mother.

I do know if he was born in a hospital he would have a long form original detailed certificate of live birth.

Answer: "I am surprised that you do not understand the word "lost." It is a four-letter word, and many people use it."

I glad you indicated the possibility of obama having his original long form certificate of live birth and then "losing" it.

If it exists Hawaii still has it. Hawaii would have a record of the hospital and doctors name.

Lets see it.

Just because obama "lost" it, if it exists, Hawaii can provide the missing parts of the puzzle, ie hospital and doctors name.

"Hawaii does not send out the original birth certificate anymore. So Obama does not have it and cannot get it."

"In 2007 Obama applied for a new birth certificate from Hawaii, and Hawaii sent him the short-form birth certificate, which is what it has sent out to everyone since 2001."

You mean obama waited until 2007 to get a birth certificate?

How did obama get a license to practice law? How did obama become a state senator without a birth certificate? How did obama become a US senator without a birth certificate?

How did obama get a passport to travel in 1966 or 1967 to Indonesia?

Your saying he used the "lost" certificate of live birth to get a lawyers license and travel to kenya?

When did obama "lose" his certification of live birth?

The book was published in 1995.

Like I said the fake certificate obama has displayed says filed with registrar, not accepted by registrar.

A big difference.

Obama's passport records were stolen, remember? Why?

One of the guys that stole his passport records was found with a bullet in his head just before he was going to give a deposition about obama.

I guess you think this is just a coincidence.

The firm that was tasked with working with passport records during the time obama's passport records were stolen is now working for the whitehouse.

TellerIP said...

You said: “Obama made up much of "dreams of my father".”

First, YOU quoted that book. Second, why should he, in a book published in 1995 (Thanks for the correction), long before he even ran for Senate much less for president, write “The time was spent applying for passports” ? If it was a lie, it was an unusual one. It indicates that his mother did not have a passport before that, but he had no reason to indicate that she had no passport before 1966/67. Sure, it confirms that he was born in Hawaii, but he had no reason to prove that he was born in Hawaii in 1995.

But, say that she did have a passport. Why should she have gone to Kenya in 1961 when she was pregnant? The myth holds that it was to meet the in-laws, but that could have been done after the birth. In fact, since stillbirths were common in those days, that would have been far more likely. And, since the trip was terribly expensive in today’s terms, it certainly would have been more economical to do it when she could have walked around (which is difficult when you are carrying a child).

But, say that she did have a passport and did go to Kenya and did have a child in Kenya. Then how did she get the child from Kenya to Hawaii without a US travel document? You know, of course, that the US government does not just allow children from Kenya to be carried into the USA. We require proof that they are either US citizens, meaning with their own US passport or are entered on their mother’s passport, or we require proof that they are foreigners who are authorized to enter, meaning a US visa on a foreign passport.

If Obama had been born in Kenya, he would have had to get one of the three while he was in Kenya, and the records of the application for that document would still exist and would have been found long before now. So, not only is there no Kenyan birth document or Kenyan record that Obama’s mother was never there in Kenya, there is also no US travel document.

Then, if somehow Obama was smuggled into the USA without a US travel document, then somehow the family convinced the officials in Hawaii to register his birth in Hawaii. But Hawaii did not then and does not now issue a birth document that says on it “born in Hawaii” unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. Yet Obama’s certification says that he was born in Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii (the head of the Department of Health and the head of the Department of Vital Records) have confirmed that there is an original birth document in the files and that the document “verifies” (which is the word used) that Obama was born in Hawaii. And his Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. This is why the National Review says that the Kenya myth is “crazy.”

TellerIP said...

You said: “I do know if he was born in a hospital he would have a long form original detailed certificate of live birth.”

Answer: Yes, there is an original birth certificate. There is a copy of it in the official files in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii have said so. However, they also say that they do not issue copies of the original anymore FOR ANYONE. They say that the short-form certification is the official birth certificate, and that is the copy that they sent to Obama, and they say that the facts on it are accurate. It is their decision, not Obama’s, not to show the original. They don’t send out the original for anyone anymore.

You said: “If it exists Hawaii still has it. Hawaii would have a record of the hospital and doctors name.”

Answer, as I said, it does exist, and Hawaii does have it. Hawaii, under a Republican governor, has decided not to send out out. Why not? Because it obviously thinks that the official document and the confirmations are sufficient, and because it considers that it would be unfair to send out something in this case that it does not send out for everyone else.

You also said: “Lets see it.”

Since Obama does not have a copy, the only way to see it is to convince the officials in Hawaii to change their minds on this. I certainly have no objection since I am convinced that it will show that Obama was born in Hawaii (the idea that he was born anywhere else is crazy). But, it is Hawaii’s decision. Maybe you could convince the governor of Hawaii to change the policy.

The fact that Hawaii has so far decided not to change its rules does not mean that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. There is not a shred of proof that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else, and the official birth certificate and the confirmations, and a witness who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii in 1961, and the grandmother from Kenya all show that he was born in Hawaii.

TellerIP said...

You asked: “You mean Obama waited until 2007 to get a birth certificate?”

Answer: Sure, because he did not need it. He had his US passport, which was granted when he went to Indonesia with his mother in 1966 or 1967. He did not need his birth certificate once he had his passport until the election, when he wanted to put it online.

You asked; “How did obama get a license to practice law? How did obama become a state senator without a birth certificate? How did obama become a US senator without a birth certificate?”

Answer: The US passport.

You asked: “How did obama get a passport to travel in 1966 or 1967 to Indonesia?”

Answer. He showed the original Hawaii birth certificate. The document was lost between 1966/67 and 2007.

You asked; ‘When did obama "lose" his certification of live birth?”

Between 1966/67 and 2007.

You said: “The book was published in 1995.”

I stand corrected. This, of course, makes it even less likely that he lied about his mother applying for a passport in 1966/67.

You said: “Like I said the fake certificate obama has displayed says filed with registrar, not accepted by registrar.”

Answer: The officials in Hawaii say that there is no difference in meaning and that ALL such certificates show on it the date filed. The document is NOT a fake. The McCain campaign looked into that and found that there was not a shred of evidence that it was faked. Only two guys who will not give their real names have claimed that it was faked. The officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly that the facts on the document are accurate.

You said: “Obama’s passport records were stolen, remember? Why?”

I remember. You have forgotten. Obama’s passport records (and those of some other presidential candidates) were ACCESSED. That means that they were seen. There has never been a report that they were stolen or altered. In fact, there is no confirmation that they even could have been stolen or altered since they were computer files and since the Department of States keeps the original paper copies as well as the computer files.

You also said; “One of the guys that stole his passport records was found with a bullet in his head just before he was going to give a deposition about obama.”

Answer. He wasn’t going to give a deposition about Obama. He was going to say what he did with the information on the files. He did not steal the documents. He may have made copies, and not only of Obamas’ records but of McCain’s, probably.

Unless there is proof that Obama was born outside of the USA (which is crazy), this all is just smoke.