Birthers Lay an Egg

[Emma]

According to pediatricians, the greatest amount of development happens within the first two weeks, if I remember correctly. Which means a lot of changes, and many are physical. I just can't believe that someone thinks there is not enough of a difference between a day old infant and a week old infant. I wonder if they know what color they are when they are born. It's just annoying that people know so little about their own species.

gotta wonder if hes ever seen a baby being born

No I haven't...I was deployed.

God bless you. That had to have been hard for you.

I realize if you have not been around a new newborn and watched the changes that occur in the first hours and days and weeks, it's hard to imagine. There are changes, and I don't agree that it's necessarily common knowledge. I know from my schooling (nurse) and being a Mom. I do know for a fact that a doctor would pick up on these inconsistencies.

 

[Emma]

The bottom line is I believe that scenario to be very implausible, either as a less-than-week old and especially as an older baby. I just don't see how they could have pulled it off.

 

[EriktheRed]

So where is the "Do you wonder why President Obama doesn't just present his birth certificate?" poll?

I was firmly in the 'Yes' camp until Obama continued to flatly refuse to reveal the evidence the so called birthers are demanding.

Now I have moved slowly to 'Unsure' as this easily extinguished allegation over the birth certificate is allowed to continue to smolder by Obama and his advisers.

The longer it smolder, the more people wonder why.

As the old adage goes...where there's smoke, there's fire.

He didn't need to reveal anything that hasn't already been revealed. You guys can just go on being like the Diebold conspiracy fanatics after the '04 election. Everybody else is moving on without you.

you mean you "diebold nutters" gave up?

Whattya mean "you diebold nutters"? I was never one of them. Some are still out there, though; they still keep clinging to it.

 

[tigerbob]

He'd still be a US citizen, just not a natural born one.

Not from my understanding of the law...he would be a citizen of Kenya who would have to immigrate and be naturalized.

immigrate from where? even if he was born in kenya, he never lived there...his parents both were legal residents of the united states, (one a natural born citizen, the other a legal resident of the usa on a legal visa, even if he was born there?

wonder how the law would handle something like that....he would have had no place to ''immigrate'' from, no legal address there, no parents who bore him, residing there....just wondering.....neither parent had legally been living in kenya the previous year, they both were legally in the USA only there on vacation not living there...just not certain how that all really worked?????


care

Correct. My son is a U.S. citizen despite being born in Britain.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is really one big illogical point here. Who in the hell would go to all this trouble to establish the citizenship of a baby just born? So they knew at his birth that President Obama was going to have the smarts to earn the Presidency of the United States?

And, as pointed out by anyone with even a little bit of smarts, it didn't matter where he was born, his mother was a US citizen, and that automatically makes him one.

 

[bodecea]

Sweet

This was hilarious, too:

“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.”

I'm sure that percentage goes up the lower the latitude.

 

[Missourian]

The bottom line is I believe that scenario to be very implausible, either as a less-than-week old and especially as an older baby. I just don't see how they could have pulled it off.

Yeah, after our discussion this morning, I'm with ya.

If there was a medical exam...and I don't know what the protocol was in 1961 Hawaii for at home births...the flight home/older baby scenario is implausible.

Do you recall where you saw the DOH timeline info?

Appreciated the helpful info I owe ya some rep.

 

[bodecea]

Another new low Obama has taken us to. It is never ending!

Yes! It's absolutely deplorable that Obama forced the House of Representatives, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, to force them to pass a resolution stating Obama's native birth. Horrible president!!!

Should be an entire chapter in the Birther Conspiracy Lexicon, don't you think?

 

[Missourian]

There is really one big illogical point here. Who in the hell would go to all this trouble to establish the citizenship of a baby just born? So they knew at his birth that President Obama was going to have the smarts to earn the Presidency of the United States?

And, as pointed out by anyone with even a little bit of smarts, it didn't matter where he was born, his mother was a US citizen, and that automatically makes him one.

In 1961 it mattered.

As I pointed out earlier...if he was born in Kenya (or anywhere outside the U.S. or it's possession) he would NOT be a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.



I understand why people believe all children born to American citizens are automatically American citizens...it is a commonly held misconception (one that I also held until recently)...but as the old saying goes...

...the devil is in the details.

I have heard and read many reasons why Obama would not be a citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother and a foreign national father, so I went straight to the source...the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Here is a link to the relevant section - 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1

Note section 301 (a)(7)

Barack Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham would have had to reach the age of 19 before the date of his birth, she was only 18 as thus does not meet the requirement of:

"was physically present in the United States or it's outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of 14 year"
​

Barack Obama was born August 4th, 1961

Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942

18 and three quarters does not meet the threshold for citizenship.



Here is another link to the same document at a different site..please don't take my word for it, read it for yourselves:

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title 3 Chapter 1
​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ama-makes-all-the-difference.html#post1384713

 

[Navy1960]

There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth. But children born to American fathers unmarried to the children's non-American mothers are not considered natural-born citizens (or citizens at all) unless the father takes several actions:

Provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
Establish paternity by clear and convincing blood evidence,
Acknowledge his paternity formally before the child has reached his 18th birthday
This last element can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise "legitimated" by law. USC § 1409(a).


In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Although any language in Wong Kim Ark that suggests the Court's opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally.[24] Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth.[25] The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[26]

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[27] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[24] When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father



Doesn't matter where he was born , let's look at this issue with a little logic. A. The state of Hawaii has certified that he was born in Hawaii, so that in and of itself by law is enough to make the issue mute. B. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth and regardless of where he was born the courts have determined that any child born of an American citizen is by the tenants of the 14th Amendment a citizen. So while I understand the passion behind the issue and can fully understand the frustration of those that cannot understand why Barack Obama has not released his BC in the end this issue is a mute point and there are more pressing issues that IMO that should be debated as to merits of this presidents abilites.

 

[Care4all]

There is really one big illogical point here. Who in the hell would go to all this trouble to establish the citizenship of a baby just born? So they knew at his birth that President Obama was going to have the smarts to earn the Presidency of the United States?

And, as pointed out by anyone with even a little bit of smarts, it didn't matter where he was born, his mother was a US citizen, and that automatically makes him one.

In 1961 it mattered.

As I pointed out earlier...if he was born in Kenya (or anywhere outside the U.S. or it's possession) he would NOT be a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.



I understand why people believe all children born to American citizens are automatically American citizens...it is a commonly held misconception (one that I also held until recently)...but as the old saying goes...

...the devil is in the details.

I have heard and read many reasons why Obama would not be a citizen if he was born in Kenya to an American mother and a foreign national father, so I went straight to the source...the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Here is a link to the relevant section - 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1

Note section 301 (a)(7)

Barack Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham would have had to reach the age of 19 before the date of his birth, she was only 18 as thus does not meet the requirement of:

"was physically present in the United States or it's outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of 14 year"
​

Barack Obama was born August 4th, 1961

Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942

18 and three quarters does not meet the threshold for citizenship.



Here is another link to the same document at a different site..please don't take my word for it, read it for yourselves:

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title 3 Chapter 1
​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ama-makes-all-the-difference.html#post1384713

And since that was the law back in 1961, then beyond a reasonable doubt, the State of Hawaii would NOT have ever issued Obama a birth certificate, saying that he was born in honolulu, hawaii at 7:45 pm on august 4th, 1961.

Unless you believe the State of Hawaii broke the law, for Obama when he was born?

You realize that when Mccain was born, the law was that he was NOT a citizen of the united states at birth....it wasn't until a year later that congress passed a law saying those born in the panama canal zone to American citizen parents, were citizens at birth?

btw these laws you have writen have case law that may one up it...law judged in the courts, which trumps legislative laws, on constitutional grounds....

in other words we can not just merely state how the law was writen but how the courts have interpreted it, in order to get the full meaning... Navy made an attempt at such...

Care

 

[Care4all]

Does Kenyan law state that if you are born on their soil you are automatically a Kenyan citizen, back in 1961?

Does usa law state that if both parents of the child born overseas live in the united states, (one a natural born citizen who lived in the united states her entire life, including the time of birth, and the other a legal immigrant residing in the united states for 2 years already), but born overseas when their parents are on vacation, that this child being born while on vacation has to go through the same process as an American citizen LIVING ABROAD on foreign soil?

I mean as mentioned earlier....how do you naturalize him in to the system if there is no where to naturalize him from, because BOTH his parents were residents of the united states when he was born?

I am CERTAIN there is more to this law than meets the eye....and it is in regards to Americans LIVING ABROAD when they have their kids....

it is hard to believe it is in regards to Americans that just happen to be on vacation and plop their kid out on foreign soil, who do not live there?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name: Barack Soetoro
Place of Birth: Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombasa Kenya

Any questions?

When do they serve the next round of medications for you at "the home"

and do the nurses there really call you Mr. Slurpypants?

How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?

>
>
>

Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.

 

[Navy1960]

§ 1409. Children born out of wedlock
How Current is This?(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—
(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,
(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years—
(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

 

[Navy1960]

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
How Current is This?(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

enough said.... this issue should be left in the drawer for more important ones.

 

[Emma]

The bottom line is I believe that scenario to be very implausible, either as a less-than-week old and especially as an older baby. I just don't see how they could have pulled it off.

Yeah, after our discussion this morning, I'm with ya.

If there was a medical exam...and I don't know what the protocol was in 1961 Hawaii for at home births...the flight home/older baby scenario is implausible.

Do you recall where you saw the DOH timeline info?

Appreciated the helpful info I owe ya some rep.

No need but thanks. I googled the announcement to see when it had been placed. I checked a bunch of links to be sure. They all said Sunday the 13th.

 

[Missourian]

When do they serve the next round of medications for you at "the home"

and do the nurses there really call you Mr. Slurpypants?

How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?

>
>
>

Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.

You realize the catch 22 involve here don't you.

I'm a relatively sane, middle of the road kinda guy. I've been around here for a year this month and I don't think the people who know me think I'm too far out in left field (or should I say right field?).

And Obama's stonewalling created my skepticism.

If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."

But that hasn't happen? Why?

It is a legitimate question.

I'm not insisting 9/11 was an inside job or convinced that the moon landing was faked, posting thread after thread to convince you that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm asking why.



Is that now an indicator of one mental stability?

If so, we'll need another 700 billion dollar stimulus just to build asylums for everyone.


PS - I haven't received a single logical response to my question.

Why doesn't Obama just release the documentation requested instead of actively working to prevent it's release?

 

[Emma]

And since that was the law back in 1961, then beyond a reasonable doubt, the State of Hawaii would NOT have ever issued Obama a birth certificate, saying that he was born in honolulu, hawaii at 7:45 pm on august 4th, 1961.

Unless you believe the State of Hawaii broke the law, for Obama when he was born?

I've seen it claimed that what Obama produced was actually an amended BC, but that doesn't wash either.

Hawai‘i State Department of Health (describes who is eligible for an amended certificate)

And it would be obvious the certificate had been amended:

An original entry on a birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate may be amended by either the private request of an individual or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. An amendment includes changes, corrections, additions, deletions, or substitutions...

When information originally entered on a certificate is amended:, 1) a line is drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data is inserted, 2) what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer are entered on the certificate, and 3) the notation "altered" is written or stamped on the certificate.

Hawai‘i State Department of Health

 

[RadiomanATL]

How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?

>
>
>

Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.

You realize the catch 22 involve here don't you.

I'm a reletively sane, middle of the road kinda guy. I've been around here for a year this month and I don't think the people who know me think I'm too far out in left field.

And Obama's stonewalling created my skeptisism.

If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."

But that hasn't happen? Why?

It is a legitamate question. I'm not insisting 9/11 was an inside job or convinced that the moon landing was faked, posting thread after thread to convince you that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm asking why.



Is that now an indicator of one mental stability?

If so, we'll need a 700 billion dollar stimulus just to asylums.

Because letting the conservative nutcases stew about this in the media and on the internet only helps him, not hurts him.

If he came out with conclusive proof that would satisfy these people, they would still be against him. But now they may have moved on to a more credible issue that is actually grounded in reality. Thus robbing Obama of the opportunity to make his opponents look like 'tards.

First rule in politics: Never waste an opportunity to make your opponents look like they rode the short bus. Which is what the birfers are doing to those of us who oppose Obama's policies. Which pisses me off even more against them.

 

[Emma]

How about less ad hominem deflection and more answering the simple question:

Why doesn't Obama just produce the documentation that is being requested?

>
>
>

Because nothing will satisfy the birthers at this point. This is in 'staged moon landing' territory now. Treating the birthers like sane, rational people at this point falls into the category of enabling.

You realize the catch 22 involve here don't you.

I'm a relatively sane, middle of the road kinda guy. I've been around here for a year this month and I don't think the people who know me think I'm too far out in left field.

And Obama's stonewalling created my skepticism.

If he had released the birth certificate long form I would have been just like the rest of you. "Ho-hum, another conspiracy theory bites the dust."

But that hasn't happen? Why?

It is a legitimate question.

I'm not insisting 9/11 was an inside job or convinced that the moon landing was faked, posting thread after thread to convince you that I'm right and you are wrong.

I'm asking why.



Is that now an indicator of one mental stability?

If so, we'll need another 700 billion dollar stimulus just to build asylums for everyone.

Well as someone who has followed this peripherally since the beginning, every time a charge has been answered or refuted, it's used as "proof" that the conspiracy is even deeper and more convoluted than they expected. There really IS no satisfying them. It just keeps feeding upon itself.

As far as the "long form", the BC that Obama produced (COLB) is the only type Hawaii issues when a request is made for a birth certificate.