HI State Senator responds to Hawaii Petition Campaign

HOWEVER, ANSWER DISREGARDS CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

by Sharon Rondeau

HI State Senator Fred Hemmings (R)

(Mar. 30, 2010) — Many of our readers are reporting that they have received a letter from Hawaii State Senator Fred Hemmings in response to The Post & Email’s Hawaii Petition and letters mailed on March 1, 2010. The text of Hemmings’s response is as follows:

March 23, 2010

To whom it may concern:

Dwelling on the non issue of President Obama’s place of birth is harmful. His birth was reported in Honolulu papers and has been validated by Hawaii state officials. You are hurting those of us with legitimate concerns with President Obama’s ultra left agenda by the dogged pursuit of this nonissue. Please stop and concentrate your efforts on the huge and vexing problems that Obama is creating by his disastrous policies.

Aloha,

Senator Fred Hemmings
State of Hawai’i

Senator Hemmings is one of only four Republicans in the Hawaii legislature and to date, the only legislator who has responded to the thousands of letters which The Post & Email sent to Hawaii officials regarding the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

However, his response appears to be an attempt to marginalize the eligibility issue by falsely stating that Obama’s “birth was reported in Honolulu papers and has been validated by Hawaii state officials.” As The Post & Email recently reported, the only Hawaii official to have made any type of statement about Obama’s origins is Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Health Department. No other official from Hawaii will back up Fukino’s claim nor provide any supporting documentation as is required by Hawaii’s UIPA law.

While The Post & Email agrees with Senator Hemmings that Obama’s policies are “disastrous,” the bigger issue is whether or not Obama is even eligible to occupy the office of president and therefore sign legislation, treaties, and executive orders to enact those policies. If Obama does not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen,” which by his own admission he does not, then he should step down or be removed from office as a usurper.

Moreover, Senator Hemmings apparently does not understand that Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen,” which means more than simply being born in the United States. It means that both parents would have had to be citizens at the time of the child’s birth to avoid the confict of dual citizenship and foreign allegiances.

Hemmings’s letter is another indication that both state and federal legislators are either completely ignorant of the requirements of the U.S. Constitution or are choosing to ignore what the Constitution says.

Some of our readers have sent the following response to Sen. Hemmings:

Dear Senator Hemmings,

I think you are a bit misinformed and perhaps I can enlighten you on a couple of matters. My reason for requesting releasable information under your UIPA laws are entirely my own. I neither know nor care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not. That is not his problem. Obama’s problem is with the U.S. Constitution and his ineligibility to serve as our president under the requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen as required. Even if he were born in Hawaii, because his father was British/Kenyan, so was Barack Obama at his birth. So that is Obama’s little problem and one he will, sooner or later, be called to account for. And those who have been complicit aiding and abetting in Obama’s fraud will also be brought to justice. The momentum is building all across this land, by state legislatures and attorneys general, multitudinous lawsuits, and citizen lawsuits, to name a few, to expose this fraud against our country.

Your letter’s sentiment is vastly misplaced. For you to dismiss a matter of Constitutional importance and with huge ramifications for this country is incredulous. Obama could have been born in Hawaii, Timbuctu, or under Philadelphia’s liberty bell. We who love this country and clearly understand the Constitutional issue simply do not care where he was born. We do care that he most decidedly is not a natural born citizen. Only such a person would have undivided allegiance to his country. Obama, if his mother had been a U.S. citizen five years after her 14th birthday (she wasn’t), would have received both American and British/Kenyan citizenship. Dual citizenship = dual allegiance. The best Obama could be is a dual citizen. Since he is not eligible to serve as president, his “disastrous policies” stem from a disastrous fraud. You can’t just treat the symptoms; you must treat the disease. The disease is his ineligibility to sign any kind of laws, or pursue any kind of agenda.

I am surprised that a man who is a state senator presumably does not know that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as a de jure president, and thus, is a usurper. Or if you did know and are being complicit in a cover-up? If so, that is a very dangerous position to be in.

No more thinly-veiled threats, sir, as that is how I perceived your letter to me. I suggest you get your head out of the sand and join the rest of us who will never stop until the truth is known. If you do not, you will prove to have been on the wrong side of history, at the very least. Do you really want your constituents to believe you helped cover up Obama’s fraud on this country?

Fighting for the truth,

Another response:

Dear Sen. Hemmings,

Line by line I am compelled to respond to your letter of March 23, 2010 regarding the Constitutional eligibility of Barry Soetero aka Barack Obama.

Per your opening line- “Dwelling on the non issue of President Obama’s place of birth is harmful.” Your position defending the very oath your swore to uphold the Constitution of this Republic in taking the office of senator is revealed by this first admission, “it is a non issue”. Why is it a non issue? Are you saying natural born status as an American citizen is no longer required? Are you stating the requirement no longer applies? When did the requirement of natural born status become amended in our founding documents?

Second sentence- “His birth was recorded in Honolulu papers and has been validated by Hawaii officials.” This statement alone reveals your unqualified discernment to ascertain the serious aspects of passing laws and policies in the executive branch of our government. At face value, following your advice, the articles I do have in archive from various Hawaiian news publications suggest otherwise. The Honolulu Advertiser reported an interview of Tammy Duckworth (appointed to high position in the VA by Obama) stating he, as well as her, shared the commonality of being foreign born and being in the same high school. Using your confident trust as a newspaper article being confirming evidence to the facts, then let it be so. As written, he is foreign born according to the Honolulu Advertiser. To further your point, the Hawaiian officials validating his citizenship have not, will not, release documentation confirming your statement. To the contrary, the continued obfuscation of any real proof of citizenship fuels the speculation. A simple process in verification of long form birth certificate made available to concerned taxpaying citizens can alleviate ALL the mystery.

Third sentence- “You are hurting those of us with legitimate concerns with Pres. Obama ultra left agenda by the dogged pursuit of this non issue.” Allow this numerical point summary:
1. You say “us”. We the people are us. If your primary concern would focus on the legitimacy of his office occupation, the ultra leftist agenda would be the “non issue”. You have your priorities flip flopped.

2. Hurting? What have you done to stop the power grab going on? The lame non action of Congressmen & Senators challenging his ascent to power is the real hurt.

3. Why is this not your “dogged pursuit”? Are you complicit? There is MISPRISON of FELONY law to be enforced.

4. Again you use the phrase “non issue”. Are you satisfied with the liar-in-chief based on what you DON”T KNOW of his background?

Fourth sentence- “Please stop and concentrate your efforts on the huge and vexing problems that Obama is creating by his disastrous policies.”
We won’t stop until the truth is revealed either confirming his status or exposing the fraud. The actual concentration to thwart the fast pace Alinsky agenda of Obama and his czars is not working. Look, this weekend Craig Becker is now appointed to the Labor Board. After being rejected by the Senate, the circumventing of checks and balances by Obama is the norm. Vexing problems and disastrous policies are demolished by exposing the usurpation of office.

The long drawn out path of waiting to vote in 2010 or 2012 for our voice to be heard is ludicrous. The exposure of his falsified qualifications and non vetting by the DNC is paramount to re-uniting this fractured Republic on Constitutional adherence. Your position as a Senator demands more than a form letter stating the lame logic presented. At the very least, your duty demands vigorous investigation to put the “non issue” to rest. It is interesting to note the “non issue ” is a concern of millions of citizens. Very large numbers of skeptical voters to be a “non issue”.

Your salutation of Aloha in this case seems disingenuous,

Another reader wrote this in response:

Dear Senator Hemmings:

Thank you for your enlightening letter. I had no idea I would be hurting your efforts to deal with problems created by Obama. Please accept my apologies.

At 73 years of age, I find many of these issues are very confusing. It is hard to know what to believe and who to trust for information.

Based on your response, I suspect it would be safe to take your word for Obama’s eligibility. After all you are a respected and trusted public official. I would even hazard a guess a Republican representative as well. Is that correct? If we could not trust you just who could we trust?

You mentioned the Honolulu papers and the Hawaii State Officials have validated the eligibility. Forgive me Senator, not being from the great state of Hawaii, I would not know of such things directly. Perhaps I could call on your generosity to provide me with such verification. I would find that most helpful. At that point it might help me to put this concern to rest.

I really appreciate your taking the time out from your busy schedule as a Hawaii State Senator, to write me from your office to officially advise me of my confusion.

I look forward to receiving the documentation I seem to be missing to straighten me out on this matter. Thank you once more for your kindness.

Respectfully,

This letter also went out to Hemmings this morning:

Dear Senator Hemmings:

Thank you for your letter of March 23, 2010, in which you responded to petitioners of the Hawaii Petition Campaign organized by The Post & Email, an electronic newspaper incorporated in Wyoming and dedicated to transparency in government and the upholding of constitutional principles on all levels.

Not one Hawaii official will validate Obama’s birth records by revealing them publicly. The only official to have made any kind of statement about Obama’s records is Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Department of Health. While her public information officer, Janice Okubo, stated in an email to a researcher that Dr. Fukino’s statement of July 27, 2009 was “reviewed and approved” by Attorney General Mark Bennett, Bennett’s office refuses to corroborate it and has sent The Post & Email a formal letter declaring such. Therefore, nothing has been “validated” as you claim.

Last year, the Kapiolani Medical Center displayed a “letter” on its website that purportedly came from the White House with Obama’s signature on it in which Obama referred to the hospital as “the place of my birth.” As previous news reports, including a statement from Obama’s half-sister, Maya, had stated that Obama had been born at Queens Medical Center and this information was then released, the “letter” mysteriously disappeared from Kapiolani’s website. News reports were actually changed to reflect that Obama’s birthplace was now Kapiolani instead of Queens. How often does that happen?

At that point, Kapiolani Hospital officials refused to comment, and, when queried, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, refused to answer any questions as to whether or not Obama wrote the letter.

As you must know, the state of Hawaii has failed to release any original documents relating to Obama’s birth there. The image which Obama posted on the internet and to which his press secretary touted as Obama’s “birth certificate” during a press conference last year has been debunked as a forgery by several forensic experts. Original Hawaiian birth certificates from the same time period have been produced by Miki Booth, candidate for Congress from the Second Congressional District of Oklahoma and others which have a completely different appearance and many more details than the form Obama provided, which could have been produced on any laser printer. Another very detailed report of the alleged forgery can be found here.

In addition to the doubts raised by the foregoing facts, Obama admitted himself on his “Fight the Smears” website that he was born a dual citizen of Great Britain and the U.S.  Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution 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.” The term “natural born Citizen” is defined by Emmerich de Vattel in his treatise “The Law of Nations,” in which he states, “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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. . . .”

Our nation’s Founding Fathers relied heavily upon de Vattel’s work when they wrote the Constitution.

With a foreign-born father, Obama never qualified to be president, and the disgrace is that not one Secretary of State or Governor objected to his name being placed on the ballot. Our entire system of government has failed, and the sooner that is acknowledged, the sooner this horrendous situation can be corrected.

Obama is not eligible to serve and needs to step down or be removed from office. You, as a state legislator, can begin the process of issuing a subpoena for Obama’s records to be released. He is a public figure and therefore has no right to privacy. On his first full day usurping the office of the president, Obama signed an executive order blocking the release of any personal records except upon the approval of Eric Holder or Gregory Craig, the latter of whom has since been fired.

Please help us begin the end of this national nightmare in which we have a person with foreign allegiances and does not meet the constitutional requirements to serve occupying the highest office in the land and commanding our military. Clearly, Obama has shown that he values our enemies over our allies and prefers to bow to Muslim princes rather than have his photo taken with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.

Obama’s usurpation of the office of the presidency has allowed our entire government to be subverted by foreign influences, and our national security is now greatly imperiled. While this was brought up extensively during the campaign, not one judge or legislator had the courage and conviction to tackle it in the name of upholding our Constitution.

Will you, sir, be the one who will?

Sincerely,

Sharon Rondeau
Managing Editor
The Post & Email, Inc.
www.thepostemail.com

Letter from State Senator Fred Hemmings to The Post & Email's Hawaii Petition signers

29 Responses to "HI State Senator responds to Hawaii Petition Campaign"

  1. Hammer Down   Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 9:43 PM

    The first concern makes Obama ineligible for POTUS.
    The second concern is a “red herring”.
    The Senator needs to explain in plain English how can a “dual citizen” be POTUS?

  2. ed garrett   Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 2:13 PM

    He needs to go soon, too ………..

    To jail is where he needs to go. He is complicit in this fraud!!!

  3. William   Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 8:22 AM

    The first concern is that Obama is definitely not a Natural Born Citizen. This term appears to confuse Senators and Congress alike. Secondly, most everyone agree that Obama does in fact have a Long Form Birth Certificate on file with the DOH in Hawaii, that is not the question, the question is which of the 4 different known methods in accordance to Hawaii Law which included a child to obtain a long form BC born outside the territory of Hawaii did Obama’s mother (or family member) use? No one can answer that question without first obtaining the public records. So to say that he was definitely born in Hawaii simply because he has a long form on file is not a correct statement. The Senator needs to be asked, “By which method did he use to obtain it”?

  4. Bob1943   Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 8:16 AM

    I was under the impression that, when a birth was registered, and in Obama’s case a COLB obtained, that triggered an automatic newspaper notice in both of the newspapers, (which were owned by the same company). In the ads that I saw all, (Obama’s and all the others), had the same exact little bit of information, hardly what one would expect from a discussion with proud parents or grandparents.
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, and the birth announcements never gave the name of the child, and the address printed in the birth announcements was that of Stanley and Madelyn Dunham.

  5. Bob R   Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 5:30 AM

    Obviously, Senator Hemmings doesn’t fully support our US Constitution.
    He needs to go soon, too ………..

  6. naturalizedcitizen   Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 2:58 AM

    JohnC said:
    “The reason the Department of Homelands required the original long-form birth certificate is because they want PROOF OF ANCESTRY, not proof of birth. But of course, the U.S. Constitution does not require the President have or not have a particular ancestry.”

    Could you remind us whether the Department of Homelands accepts an image of a birth certificate posted on a private web page as a proof of Hawaiian ancestry?

    Is there a single government institution that accepts an image posted on a private web page as a proof of anything?

  7. CDR Kerchner   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 11:58 PM

    My discussion with Bill Cunningham on his radio show regarding the newspaper announcements that this Hawaiian Senator so proudly touts as absolute proof Obama was physically born in Hawaii. Obama’s birth may have been registered as occurring in Hawaii in 1961 but with the very lax birth registration system and laws in effect then in Hawaii, Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and had his birth falsely registered as occurring there by the maternal grandmother simply to gain fraudulently U.S. citizenship for her new grandson, which was and is a highly prized status. Document fraud occurs today and it occurred then too. They just thought back then that no one would ever find out about it. And if Obama had never ran for President it probably never would have since that office and that of the VP is the only office which requires the “natural born Citizen” status to be eligible, i.e., born in the country to two citizen parents of the country. Listen to this audio recording for more on the newspaper announcement the Senator places his faith in and who actually placed those announcements and based on what.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

    CDR Kerchner

  8. Hammer Down   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 10:57 PM

    To:Senator Fred Hemmings
    State of Hawai’i.
    Dear Sir,
    I know you’re very busy so I’ll be brief.
    Please explain how a “dual citizen” can be POTUS?
    Thank you.

  9. tminu   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 10:39 PM

    Andrew Johnson’s parents were both born in the USA, his father was born in Raleigh. Buchanan’s parents were both US citizens and he was born on US soil. Chester Arthur the Usurper lied about his father’s citizenship, and this was outed only recently by Leo Donofrio. The UK did not recognize dual citizenship until the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama Sr. never was a US citizen.

  10. TexomaEd   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 10:36 PM

    A natural born citizen is someone born in the US to citizen parents — and these parents can be born citizens or naturalized citizens.

    Buchanan’s father became a US citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. President Buchanan was born in 1791.

    President Jackson was not a natural born citizen, but he was a Citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (the “grandfather” clause of Article II Section 1).

    Chester Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. Arthur Senior became naturalized when Chester was 14. However, at the time of Chester’s election as VP in 1880, no one knew about Chester’s father’s Irish citizenship at the time of Chester’s birth, and Chester told lies about his father in order to successfully hide this fact.

  11. tminu   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 10:29 PM

    Ed Hale has a looooooong list of fraudulent get-excited over nothing shenanigans. I do not trust him AT ALL.

  12. Vexatious Requester   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 10:14 PM

    An excerpt of my response to Senator Hemmings:

    It saddens me that you just dismiss the issue simply because the DoH has deemed President Obama as a Natural Born Citizen by providing a statement that it has verified it is in possession of his original vital records and a birth announcement that appeared in the two local newspapers. The issue is not where he was born but his citizenship status at the time of his birth and the distinct possibility he was later adopted by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian. If you truly want to stop what you called “Obama’s ultra radical agenda” you would stand with us and not against us, or at least make your own inquiries. The quickest way to end this madness is to demand the SoH act in the best interest of the general public and demand President Obama to release all of his personal records. Until elected or appointed officials stand with “we the people” the polarization we are witnessing is only going to worsen, not improve.

    If the records were released it would likely prove one or more of the following apply:

    1) Barack Obama Sr is not the natural father listed on the original COLB and his father is an unknown to the public at this time and was quite possibly a US citizen at the time of President Obama’s birth. This however would be incongruent with his “life story”.

    2) BHO Sr. was listed as the natural father and President Obama was a dual citizen at the time of his birth and remained so until the age of 23, according Kenyan law. No evidence to date has ever been presented that he formally rennounced his British/Kenyan citizenship.

    3) Obama was formally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in HI and he assumed Indonesian citizenship which could negate his NBC status depending on one’s interpretation of the Constitution. The Dunham/Soetoro divorce decree listed two dependent children, one over 18 and one under 18. Why would Obama be listed if he had not been adopted by Soetoro in HI?

    4) If the above occurred, Obama would had to have submitted an administrative or court approved legal name change to the DoH to amend his birth certificate. If this occurred, the face of the birth certificate and the COLB must be identified as “amended”.

    5) Obama attended Occidental and possibly Columbia as a foreign student and received foreign student financial aid.

    Rather just dismiss our efforts to uncover the truth, I suggest that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. I suspect that dedicated researchers such as myself know far more about the subject than just about any other elected or appointed official. The unraveling of the mystery begins with the original birth certificate. I am more than happy to point you to additional information gathered thus far or to additional resources.

    I’d start with a thorough non-partisan, independent audit of the DoH. If you choose to continue to dismiss the eligibility issue, then you are, in my opinion, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. To be quite frank, I am sick of the standard “nothing to see here, move along” response received thus far from elected officials who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    Until Obama’s eligibility is resolved, the validity of every judicial appointment, every bill signed into law, every foreign policy resolution, etc.is questionable at best, and most importantly, is a grave national security concern.

  13. James   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    go to http://www.plainsradio.com/Plains_Radio/radio1.html to find out more. hurray!

  14. jtx   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:31 PM

    JohnC:

    Perhaps your nic really is “smrstrauss” or that of your wife “ann1” who have both been outed as part of the Obama Flying Monkey tribe. Those Obots use the exact same talking points that have been completely torn apart and shown to be both nonsense AND untrue.

    You merely repeat the same trash for whatever reason. It doesn’t seem to bother your kind to consider that Obama (nor anyone else for that matter – including you) has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies. NO ONE!! And that is a Constitutional requirement.

    You Communists are all alike and will only realize the terror of your own lifes after a few years of totalarian rule which you are helping to promote by your ignorance.

    You’ll note I didn’t say “stupidity”, but “ignorance” and I am thereby giving you the huge benefit of the doubt since ignorance may be cured but stupid is forever.
    —————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I have banned JohnC, as he is obviously an Obot.

  15. Bob1943   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:27 PM

    Sounds like he is talking about the Lucas Smith Kenyan Obama birth certificate. I would wonder how you can carbon date a copy made in 2009 back to 1960? It sounds like BS….but, hey, it’s almost got to be at least as legit as the COLB the Obots claim is “real”.

    Don’t think I’ll be donating 100 bucks though, I’ll wait for another Nigerian lottery e-mail.

  16. plain jane   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:13 PM

    Who are you? Who is Ed Hale? Who is Caren? What are you talking about? Why will it cost you $36,000? Why should I spend $100 to see something by someone who can’t spell?
    —————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I cannot vouch for any of the information posted about this, but the site is http://www.plainsradio.com. The Post & Email interviewed Ed Hale here: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/31/professional-journalism-with-a-down-home-flavor/

  17. James   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM

    Ed Hale has just informed us he has the real deal.
    —-
    The Obama Birth Certificate is ligit

    I just got off of the phone with the Professor at the 3rd school. All test came back 100% postive. It has now been carbon dated to paper 1960, ink 1961, It is in O gandmothers hand wirting and now the final test is wirtten around the 15 of August 1961, Obama your azz is grass and I am (B)POWER LAWN MOWER(/B. We should ahve the document in our hand sometime tomorrow and our plans are to release it to the public on the “LIONS DEN” show on Plains Radio sometime around 8 pm center time. I will install the paypal button tomorrow and all of you who want to see this historial document 1st will be asked to pay $100.00 for a password. This is going to cost me and Caren $36,000.00 so we need your help. I will lock the chat room down and issue new password after tonight show. This is the real deal folks. I am so excited so please excuse the typing. Join us tonihgt in the chat room for Joe Saebi show. I will talk late in his show aobut this.
    —-
    Does Ed Hale got his hands on some real red dynamite?

    You can all find out tommorrow.
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Did Mr. Hale claim that the COLB which Obama posted on his website is authentic, or has Mr. Hale obtained something different? If he has found something else, from which state was it issued?

  18. Jim Delaney   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 7:38 PM

    Opinerlog has a post entitled “SCOTUS-POTUS Legal Summary”, among other Obama eligibility-related posts, which required a month of research. Folks the likes of Hemmings and his other less than due diligent cohorts in government, could benefit from reading this post. Hands down, Obama is ineligible. Period. No lingering legal question at all. End of story. The research has been done by many responsible persons, constitutional scholars and objective bloggers alike, so the task before Americans now is to expose the usurpation, hopefully before 2012.

  19. plain jane   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 7:34 PM

    I was just thinking that maybe he could respond to the inconsistancies in the democratic nomination forms submitted for the 2008 election, i.e. why did Hawaii required a different one than the other states? One with a constitutional requirement. He might be a good source point for questions?

  20. JohnC   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 7:15 PM

    It is not a theory. Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” states that such a citizen is born in the country to two citizen parents.

    Vattel was defining what constituted citizenship by birth. By his reckoning, if one of your parents wasn’t a citizen of the country, you couldn’t be a citizen of the country even if you were born there. American jurisprudence has utterly and completely rejected this notion of citizenship.

    It is important to note that Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen.” That term was added to English translations decades after he died, and a decade after the Constitution was adopted.
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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 society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.”

    http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

  21. JohnC   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii.

    The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.

    The reason the Department of Homelands required the original long-form birth certificate is because they want PROOF OF ANCESTRY, not proof of birth. But of course, the U.S. Constitution does not require the President have or not have a particular ancestry.

    Next…

  22. JohnC   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM

    A ‘Dual-Citizen’ at birth is NOT synonymous with the Constitutional ‘meaning and intent’ of the ‘idiom’ Natural Born Citizen.

    If you are right, then please explain how James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Chester Arthur were able to serve as U.S. Presidents. Each was born to a father that was born in the United Kingdom. The UK has never recognized renunciation of citizenship by means of becoming a citizen of another country. As a result, unless their father renounceds their UK citizenship to UK officials (which I highly doubt ever happened), they remained UK citizens when their children were born. Their children thus were UK citizen by descent, and thus were dual citizens at birth.

    Under your theory, they wouldn’t have been eligible to serve as president. But, alas, they did.
    ————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: It is not a theory. Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” states that such a citizen is born in the country to two citizen parents. It does not require that both parents be born in the country also; they could have immigrated and been naturalized. However, it does require that naturalization, if applicable, occur before the child is born. In that manner, there are two generations (the parents and the child) who have no trace of foreign allegiance due to jus soli and jus sanguine (see http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com) for an excellent definition of this.

  23. plain jane   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    What’s his email address?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: senhemmings@Capitol.hawaii.gov

  24. Michael Norris   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 6:09 PM

    It is ONLY the ‘copies of the contents’ that is ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’
    The ‘part thereof’ i.e. a COLB is EXCLUDED.

    This practise or principle of accepting nothing less than a complete and full copy of a BIRTH CERTIFICATE is supported by the DHHL requirements and federal requirements and guidelines for proof of citizenship.

  25. Michael Norris   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 6:00 PM

    It is clear that the Hawaiian COLB is not acceptable at state and federal level as a substitute for a birth certificate and is therefore unacceptable as proof of citizenship.

    No matter how much they (Judge Carter, Press Sec Gibbs, Media, Congress, etc) want to accept the COLB and give the impression that it is acceptable proof, they have side-stepped the legal requirements.

    First.

    From http://ngoldfarb.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/state-of-hawaii-says-obama-birth-certificate-not-valid/

    “Here is what the State of Hawaii’s official government websites publish about the matter:

    QUOTE: “The Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii.

    The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii.

    The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.

    “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found ONLY on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth(a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.“
    —————————————————————————————————-
    Second.
    The HRS clearly excludes a COLB (part thereof) from being used as a birth certificate.
    This further confirms the unacceptability of a COLB.
    Before reading the statute, you need to consider that,
    A ‘certified copy’ must mean an image copy, because it is made distinct from the other two options & makes no mention of any contents, therefore it goes without saying that it is as good as the original if certified, and they couldn’t give out the original filed document anyway.
    The ‘contents’ must mean all the contents, because a ‘part thereof’ is made distinct.
    If the statute was intended to provide for all three forms to be the same as the original, then it would say so, something like …..
    ‘ (b) All three issuances shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.’
    But it doesn’t, and it is clear that part (b) means precisely what it says, due to the fact that the DHHL doesn’t accept ‘part thereof’ COLB. (see above)

    Hawiiian Revised Statute.
    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    Third.
    Now here is further supporting evidence that federal government is consistent with the requirement of DHHL & HRS requirement for a proper birth certificate.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/birthcert.htm
    ” May 11 2009
    A birth certificate or a certified copy of an original birth certificate is becoming increasingly important as a required form of identification. A birth certificate is required for getting a US passport and is considered valid proof if US citizenship by federal, state and local government agencies. A birth certificate may be required when applying for some jobs and may, in the future, be required when getting or renewing a driver’s license.
    A certified copy of a birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of the person’s date of birth.
    How to Get a Certified Birth Certificate
    The federal government does not provide copies of birth certificates, marriage licenses, divorce decrees, death certificates, or any other personal vital records. Copies of birth certificates and other personal vital records can only be obtained from the state or US possession where the documents were originally filed. Most states provide a centralized source from which birth certificates and other vital records can be ordered.
    Each state and US possession has its own set of rules and fees for ordering certified birth certificates on other vital records. Rules, ordering instructions and fees for all 50 states, the District of Columbia and all US possessions can be found on the Where to Write for Vital Records web page, helpfully maintained by the US Centers for Disease Control.
    When ordering, be aware that shortened (abstract) versions of birth certificates offered by some states may not be acceptable for US passport purposes. Be sure to order only the full, certified copy of the original birth certificate bearing the registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office.”

  26. Joe The Blogger   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 3:48 PM

    HI State Senator Fred Hemmings (R) – LOSER.

  27. Mike   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    What comes to mind reading his response is Jason Robards’ line in “All the President’s Men” – ‘Another non-denial denial!’

  28. Robbins Mitchell   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 3:15 PM

    The mere fact that Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth was announced in Honolulu newspapers at the time is,in itself,meaningless and hardly evidentiary…The Chicago Tribune announced in early November of 1948 that Dewey had defeated Truman…most people didn’t believe that one either…at the time of Obama’s birth,his father was a citizen of Kenya and,therefore,a British subject…and under British law at the time,so was Barack Jr…and no amount of circumlocution can change that salient fact…I won’t even go into whether or not he visited Pakistan on an Indonesian passport in the late 1970’s since it would have been impossible for him to visit there at the time on an US passport….there is more evidence that Jesus Christ actually walked the earth in human form than there is that Barack Obama is a native natural born American citizen

  29. slcraig   Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    (I imagine most everyone that received the Senators form letter took the time to respond in a personal way…)

    Senator Fred Hemmings.

    I am id receipt of one of your ‘To whom it may concern:” letters, dated March 23rd, 2010, regarding the status of the birth circumstances of the present occupant of the office of POTUS.

    I appreciate your ‘concern’ of what issue’s are the ‘concerns’ of others and I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the ‘ultra left agenda’ that is being pursued by this administration.

    Where were you before this Marxist Socialist was elected?

    I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I am certainly NOT a ‘useful idiot’.

    A ‘Dual-Citizen’ at birth is NOT synonymous with the Constitutional ‘meaning and intent’ of the ‘idiom’ Natural Born Citizen.

    I, personally. do not care where the ‘0’ was born; however, the ‘red-herring’ of the ‘birth certificate issue’ detracts from the acknowledged fact that he was a DUAL-CITIZEN at birth.

    This may all be lost and of no significance to you, but the Framers of the Constitution held significant concern over the possibility and probability’ that ‘usurpation’ would be a design used to wrest the power of the government from the hands of the ‘People’.

    This has happened on your watch.

    You are the one that needs to focus on the ‘Achilles Heel’ of this Marxist Socialist Usurper and support my efforts to have the Constitutional definition, meaning and intent acknowledged by the SCOTUS and the Public at Large.

    Do you even have the least bit of understanding of the significance and definition of the ‘idiom’ Natural Born Citizen as found in Article II Section I Clause V of the Constitution?

    Your ‘native born Hawaiians’ seem to take their multi-generation heritage personally and seriously.

    Perhaps you should take a moment from your pursuit of ‘huge and vexing problems’ and look to the Constitution of the United States of America for a simpler solution to end the reign of this usurper.
     
     
    Respectfully,

    Steven Lee Craig
    Natural Born American Citizen.

    FYI
    Natural born (American) citizen = A person born within the jurisdiction of the US to parents, (plural), that were both US citizens at the time of that persons birth, regardless of how the parents obtained their US citizenship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.