HOWEVER, FAILS TO ANSWER QUESTION
by Sharon Rondeau
(Feb. 6, 2010) — On Thursday, February 4, 2010, Barack Obama admitted that his “citizenship” is in question.
A poll completed last August revealed that at that time, just over half of the registered voters in the state of North Carolina believed that Obama was born in the United States.
The survey, conducted by PublicPolicyPolling, indicated that 54% of the state’s voters believed that Obama’s birthplace was the United States, while 26% said they did not believe he was born in the U.S., 20% said “they were not sure.”
The article, dated August 11, 2009, referenced a statement made by the Hawaii Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, on July 27, 2009, confirming Obama’s birthplace as Hawaii. The statement reads: “I, Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen…”,
However, The Post & Email reported earlier this week that the Hawaii Attorney General will not confirm the veracity of Dr. Fukino’s statement.
Questions arose about Obama’s constitutional eligibility during the 2008 campaign. At that time, Hawaii Health Department officials had insisted that privacy laws prohibited them from revealing any information about Obama or any other citizen’s birth there. In a Chicago Tribune article from October 30, 2008, Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer for the Health Department, was quoted as saying “she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”
On May 27, 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted that “the State of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president’s birth” after ridiculing the WorldNetDaily reporter who asked why Obama would not release his long-form birth certificate to the public. It still has not been released from the candidate who campaigned vigorously on the theme of “transparency.”
At the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4, Obama had been discussing the topic of “civility” when he stated, “Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.” The quip drew laughter and applause from the audience and a smile from Obama.
He went on to say, “”Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other’s motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams – even when we don’t share the same plans on how to fulfill them.”
Obama’s statement on Thursday, his first public acknowledgement of the controversy raging about whether or not he is a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution, indicates that he is aware of the doubts surrounding his eligibility. Yet he refuses to release any documentation about himself.
According to a January 8, 2010 article from “Political Insider,” Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) wrote, and the White House confirmed receiving, a letter requesting that Obama prove that he was constitutionally qualified to serve as president. Deal is running for governor of Georgia. No response to the letter has been reported.
While the speculation focuses on Obama’s birthplace, it is not the only factor in determining “natural born” citizenship. Emmerich de Vattel, Swiss jurist and scholar, upon whose work “The Law of Nations” was relied heavily when the Framers wrote the Constitution, defines “natural born citizen as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” He goes on to say, “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Therefore, because Obama claims a foreign national as his father, contrary to Dr. Fukino’s public statement, he never met the definition of “natural born American citizen.”
Obama acknowledges having spent at least part of his childhood in Indonesia, calling Jakarta his “old home town.” At that time, Indonesian law required a child to be a citizen of that country in order to attend school. If Obama was or still is a citizen of another country, how can he be considered a “natural born [American] citizen?”
More than a year after his taking office, the American people are still waiting.
There is a very good article on the “American Thinker”
ttp://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/another_look_at_obamas_origins.html
It would in fact explain why the birth certificate contains embarrassing facts.
Even though don’t find it embarrassing.
It is discussed that Stanley Dunham is really Obamas father, and the mother could be a black prostitute.
This is just one of many scenarios.
It would make him a natural born citizen however.
One thing is mentioned that I find interesting.
quote:
As a Kenyan, Barack Sr. would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an “African,” a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than “Negro.” Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after an American father — say “Darnell Johnson” — he may never have been elected president.
I’m not sure if I agree, but he sure is not who he claims to be.
One way or the other.
His younger daughter looks like a little Kenyan I find, but it is a shame that he does not show his personal records and makes people waste their time guessing what he is hiding.
Another good article about Obamas CIA connection:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-7297-0-5-5–.html
It’s not going away.
——————————–
Mr. Charlton replies: I am glad that American Thinker is beginning to think about the issue. They still have not responded to my inquiry about advertising the Hawaii Petition Campaign at their site. Is it because they don’t want the BC disclosed?
I suggest a letter writing campaign, in a respectful tone, to the editor of the American Thinker, asking why they won’t take an ad from The Post & Email for its HI Petition to release Obama’s BCs?
I also suggest the same campaign to the editor of World Net Daily, who also never responded to my inquiry about advertising. There is a lot of talk out there, encourage some action.
AttilasDaughter, good post and interesting theory. Good links, too – thanks.
However, it does not make any difference as to the real parentage of Obama, because Obama Senior claimed him as a product of the marriage. In the time of our Founding Fathers, all that was necessary was for the father of record to claim he was the father in actuality, which Obama Senior did in the divorce papers. In the time of our Founding Fathers there was no way to test (such as with DNA) for paternity. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.
Obama’s citizenship status at birth was dual (US and British/Kenyan) and so was his allegiance. His status at birth was “governed” by the laws of Great Britain. Natural born citizen status is the “strong check” against foreign influence, and this influence was present at the birth of Obama, as well as in the years that followed. These are all facts which will not go away should his father turn out to have been an American.
Obama said “But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.”
We should question the citizenship of everyone who runs for office and everyone who votes in our elections. America is for the citizens of America and should be governed by citizens, not by citizens of foreign countries or those who owe allegiance to foreign countries.
Obama is wrong as usual.
Obama doesn’t get to pick and choose on what basis he is questioned. There’s no incivility in trying to uphold the Constitution and to expect the most public figure in the world to provide reasonable, verifiable proof that he is indeed Constitutionally eligible.
Hey AttilasDaughter,
Yes you are correct, and I recall that.
I can’t cite the case but it was one of the first.
I just cannot believe that this crap has gone on for soooo lonnng.
I’m hopeful however that this major Hollywood Soros-Alinsky Production
is exposed for what it is BEFORE the fall elections and totally wrecks the
Democrap Party.
Saw today the term AKAObama!!!! Refers to his improper use of legal and
illegal names and social security numbers, and the “rumor” that he lost his
Illinois Law License for using or denying use of same. We need to get investigaors into South Side Chicago to find out his story. Those people know about his life, the rumors, the stories, the legends. Canvass the streets, coffee shops, diners, bars, barber and beauty shops for leads, then follow them up.
——————-
Mr. Charlton replies: The Post & Email is committed to hiring a team of private eyes to dig up everything on Obama, funds alone are wanting. If donors came together and gave us a large budget on this, I assure you we could find some really damaging information. The problem is that no one wants to put their money where it counts. I have already discussed this for weeks with a PI firm; who is ready and waiting, to go to it. PIs, who are properly financed can get stuff that no one else could.
I’ve posted on several websites requesting contributions to John’s efforts and also asked patriots to do the same. Please consider doing the same and contribute what you can to this great cause!
I’m sure you’ve noticed that many references are to “native born” citizen rather than what is contested “natural born” citizen. Or just his ‘citizenship’.
The other interesting development I’ve noticed is that on Fox News channel, anytime anyone uses any of those terms or just plain ‘citizenship’ all the Fox Commenters are quick to point out that Fox has researched it thoroughly and that there is no question that Obama is ‘a citizen’. Well, of course, again, that’s not the question. The question is ‘natural born’ citizen and until Fox News can assure us that they have seen the ‘real birth certificate’ and that both of Obama’s parents are citizens of the USA only, then they can’t assure us that he is a ‘natural born’ citizen. What is Fox News afraid of?
They, along with all the other major “oppositional” media have most likely been threatend with losing their license to broadcast. There is no other rational reason why they will not address the issue.
Look what happened to Judge Carter in CA. One month he says that obama’s elligibility is an important mater for the entire Country that must be resolved as quickly as possible. The next month he won’t touch it. What do you think happened in the interim? Some one obviously threatened him or his family. Again, there is no other rational explanation for such a dramatic swing in his agenda.
This is what we get with a bunch of Chicago thugs in power.
I agree. Else they would not have anything to fear by asking the following legitimate question of Constitutional law:
How can the status at birth of a natural born citizen of the United States of America be “governed” by the laws of Great Britain?
Note that this question has nothing to with Obama’s birthplace or birth certificate, but has everything to do with the non-US citizenship of Obama Senior, the father of Obama (by admission of both father and son).
It is really the first time we hear about the eligibility issue from Obama himself!
Biden made a joke about the birth certificate, then it was pretty clear they are aware of the controversy.
Unfortunately for Obama his citizenship is not the question, neither will a long form birth certificate from Hawaii make him a natural born citizen.
At one point I had read about a statement by Obamas defense (in one of the many law suits) that the content of the file in Hawaii would be embarrassing to Obama.
This was the reason he does not want to release it.
Does anybody remember that?
I believe this what you are referring to?
http://rovingpatrol.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/obama-embarrassed-over-birth-certificate/
Yep!
Cool, thank You!