Talk Shows, Press Begin Covering Eligibility
One might think that the proverbial Pandora’s Box has been opened — it appears that more and more talk shows and press outlets are taking on the presidential eligibility issue — and in earnest.
Most recently, the Columbus, Georgia-based Ledger-Enquirer had run with the story of Major Cook. In fact, this has been such a major story for the paper that they recently wrote about their internal experiences with the issue, including the following stats:
- The Cook v. Good story produced the most traffic of any story ever in the history of the local paper
- More than 1,000 comments from readers were produced, including (unfortunately) a number of threats against the newspaper
- The paper received almost 500,000 unique hits (readers who had never previously accessed the paper)
- A prominent spot on The Drudge Report was responsible for 84% of this new traffic
- The paper received 712,251 page views, 7 times their normal volume
- The reporter herself received hundreds of emails once the story broke
- At the Courthouse, a number of public safety agencies were involved to make sure the grounds were secure, including assets from the following areas:
- Columbus Police Department
- Phenix City Police Department
- Muscogee County Sheriff’s Office
- Columbus Fire and Emergency Medical Services
- US Marshall’s Office
One of the major papers in Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, also picked this story up, and one of their bloggers wasted no time in expressing his disdain towards the eligibility question.
A reporter from Sonoran News out of Cave Creek, Arizona has recently run some notable stories on this issue, such as “Ghana apparently didn’t get the memo” (with quite the honorable mention to my bodaciously kewl web site — many thanks for that!) and “Allen v. Soetoro assured standing in FOIA claim.”
Tomorrow, Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in the currently pending case Kerchner v. Obama, will have his newest advertorial printed in The Washington Times Weekly Edition:
Newest version of Advertorial Series 2 inserted in tomorrow’s issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition, on page 9. This one introduces to the readers of the paper and points out that Obama was a British Subject at birth in 1961. With citizenship of another country at birth, i.e., in Obama’s case British citizenship at birth he is not, and can never be, a natural born citizen of the USA. Also this insertion points out that the framers such as Franklin, Jay, Washington, and others used Vattel in the drafting of the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
To help the cause and do more such advertorial insertions in national newspapers see: http://www.protectourliberty.org And to all the patriots that have helped to-date, I thank you.
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090720 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 9
Then we get to the talk show hosts. Back on June 10th, talk show king Rush Limbaugh quipped about the birth certificate, making mention that the lack thereof was one thing that Mr. Obama and God had in common.
Sirius-XM satellite radio talk show host Lynn Samuels says that the President is “lying” about his birthplace (h/t TheObamaFile.com):
Next, New York City radio talk host Steve Malzberg made some commentary:
And then there was Lou Dobbs of CNN fame:
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy TCUNation.com
Similar Posts:
- Kerchner v. Obama Eligibility Ad Placed in Weekly Paper
- Kerchner v. Obama Lead Plaintiff Places Second Ad, Asks for Help
- Flush the Certification! New Site Helps People Creatively Express Frustration Over Eligibility; WND Promotes Campaign
- Kerchner v. Obama: Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief
- Eligibility Update: Kerchner v. Obama Declaration, Washington Times Ad, Easterling v. Obama Rumor, Other News
HD-
You respond with personal attacks which makes you an undesirable.
I could care less where Obama was born, but I don’t mind being lumped in with birthers as I believe they are only after the truth.
You seem to not want the truth revealed and support Obama in his efforts to keep records private when his eligibility is questioned.
Good luck with that. I hope it works out for you, because if it does, it will work out for all of us.
But, if it doesn’t work out for all us, what then? Have you a imagined a scenario about how things will be under a president who is not what he promised to be (i.e., transparent).
Lou Dobbs used to not be included with birthers, and now he finds himself a target. Don’t you know he’s digging his heels in because all he did was ask a question.
I don’t know what will happen, I don’t make predictions on legal outcomes, and I don’t know what you’ll say next.
My faith is in God and that there are not enough forces on this earth to stop His will.
If you reply to this message, which I’m sure you will so you can pick apart my words and use them against me, don’t expect me to see it.
You’re viciousness and lack of civility makes me want to steer the hell away from you and your comments.
I only posted the last one to you because I thought you were so hell-bent on your opinion that you really hadn’t read anything available that shows where the doubts are on this whole situation. And, if that article doesn’t at least make you go “Hmmmmmm”, then stay where you are and know you did your part in all of this.
Peace to you and yours,
elspeth
elspeth:
It is one thing to have an “open mind.” It is another thing entirely to let your brains fall out on the floor.
KJ’s points are pointless. I encourage you to join him in their “scientific” exploration if you feel otherwise. But I will invest my effort on real ideas.
What about that article impresses you? Because, I gotta tell you, this supposed “investigator” makes errors of the sort that should only be expected from a Joe Farah sock puppet.
Oh… what am I thinking? Westernjournalism.com actually is a Joe Farah sock puppet.
But still…. what does he say that impresses you? Because I’m glad to discuss with you any points you find actually compelling.
KJ, I think you made excellent points that HistorianDude totally ignored. He focused on the personal, and that causes a distraction. I don’t know if earl learned it from HD or the other way around, but both are very good at it.
HistorianDude, If the points that KJ made were so easily ignored, I think you must have a closed mind about the eligility issue, allowing no room for anyone who has an open mind. Can you remain close-minded after reading this: http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697? If the answer is yes, it would seem your purpose on this blog is to sway others to your close-mindedness. If no, please be as verbal to others as you once were to those opposing your current position. Can you be like Paul?
KJ:
Quite clearly it is a misunderstanding, since I never called what you wrote a lie. I merely pointed out that the issue you wanted to pursue was originally nothing more than a wild speculation promoted on the basis of a lie. I never considered either the speculation or the lie to have originally been yours.
But, the claim that Pakistan was ever on a US State Department “no travel” list is a lie. Pure and simple. Once the lie was exposed, the speculation regarding Obama’s passport became pointless.
Why it still fascinates you is entirely beyond me. But I do not share your interest.
Historian Dude:
To call something that I wrote a lie! Isn’t that a little strong for you? Maybe it was a misunderstanding. Let’s try to clear it up.
Let’s talk a little about the Scientific Method. You mentioned that the Scientific Method can be used to confirm theories to fit facts and that is true, but not the whole story. The Scientific Method can also be used when one wishes to create an artificial element or a “mini black hole” or the first artificial diamond or clone a sheep. First the experimenter will form a list of likely ways (with “controls” and “variables”) to produce what is desired (hypotheses) based on what he knows (a few facts may not qualify as a “theory”), although desired goal has not positively been established to exist or possible to create by human effort. Next the experimenter chooses the most likely method to achieve the goal and tests it. If the first approach doesn’t work on the first try (very few experiments without a firm theoretical basis are successful on the first try and then there is always the possibility of experimental apparatus problems), the experimenter will try to figure out why, and try a modified version of the method again or the next thing on the list. The experimenter may or may not be successful; he may need physical or theoretical tools beyond what is currently available.
Forming hypothesis and performing experiments is always interesting and you never know what you will find. Some experiments throw theories out the window, sometimes a new unexpected phenomenon is observed, and sometimes results are achieved purely through luck (radioactive material unintentionally set down on photographic plates) with perhaps some help from intuition. Of course there are limits as to what a scientific researcher will attempt based on what is known at the outset and what is learned during the process.
An example of limits: To date, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence has not yielded a positive result and “Star Trek” like space travel is viewed as probably not feasible. A hypothesis that there are intelligent aliens from other solar systems among us on Earth (an hypothesis with such a low probability (near zero) of being true that we can assume it is not possible) would considered to be wild speculation, because of the previous statement and the lack of any presently known feasible test of the hypothesis. The person who asks whether there are such aliens among us may be laughed at or ignored, but to ask the question is not to lie.
Let us consider the known facts that would have allowed Mr. Obama to hold a non-US passport in 1981 and possibly beyond:
He had a claim to Kenyan citizenship before he became 21.
He made a trip to Indonesia and Pakistan at the age of 20 in 1981.
He would have been eligible to carry at least one non-US passport.
Could Mr. Obama have obtained a Kenyan passport? His father was living in Kenya and could have helped him obtain one. He and his father exchanged letters. There would have been a Kenyan embassy in the United States to which he could have mailed a passport application (US passports were obtained solely by mail at that time).
A non-zero probability feasible path would exist for Mr. Obama to obtain a Kenyan passport.
Did Mr. Obama ever obtain a Kenyan (or possibly other) passport? I don’t know. That is why I asked the question.
True, Mr. Obama does have a COLB and according to one view, that should be enough. But he also has a rather complex citizenship history and has not offered anything else beyond the COLB. There is a non-zero probability that he could offer something else, like a long form BC which the Hawaii DOH stated that they had in October of 2008. I’m willing to bet that there is 100% probability that other documents relevant to his citizenship status exist and have also not been offered.
Does the COLB alone prove that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen as the Framers would have defined it when the Constitution was written? According to another view, the COLB disqualifies him to be President. Which view is correct?
I would like someone with authority, like the US Supreme Court, to hear both views and render a formal written opinion on what a natural born citizen is. Dismissal on standing, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to cite a claim upon which relief can be granted does not address the meaning of natural born citizen as it appears in the Constitution.
[...] Are Easy When You Have Illegal Info! Market Ticker Press Finally Starts Covering Obama Eligiblity: Right Side Of Life Commerce Secretary- U.S. Must Pay For China’s Emissions: Hot [...]
KJ:
If it were an investigation into something meaningful, you would have gotten a different response.
Oh, but it absolutely is wild speculation. Scientific theories are not simply picked out of thin air. Theories are frameworks of ideas that explain facts. There are no facts here to be explained. So what purpose does your theory of a foreign passport for Obama serve?
Remember, the wild speculation was originally offered for the purpose of explaining a lie. Once the lie was exposed, the theory that explained it was pointless. You are anxious here to continue pursuing a pointless theory, and I am not.
What about that do you not understand?
No. It is the question itself that is speculation.
Nope. Disrespect is not the issue. Pointlessness is.
There are all sorts of documents that may tell all sorts of stories. Only some of them are worth pursuing.
HD:
I regret that you choose to decline my invitation at this time. I would accept the results of an open investigation whatever they might be and would hope that you have done the same.
I find your comment about indulging in wild speculation puzzling. Using a proven method to systematically arrive at the best answer to an unanswered question by examination of original documents could hardly be considered speculation.
Perhaps it is the act of asking the question that you find to be speculation. That approach could be extended to questioning any authority, e.g. Aristotle, Newton, King George III, Senator McCarthy, Cardinal Bellarmine, Stalin, etc. Regular questioning of authority can be healthy, advance knowledge/civilization, and prevent damages of many types.
Perhaps you find it offensive to even ask the question; you see it an act of disrespect towards the President. Historically, our Presidents and their actions have been questioned, it is part of our culture. Even historic Presidents should not be above questioning, Lincoln wasn’t. To failure to examine our chief executive leader, no matter who or what he is, could invite corruption, or if he is ineligible, blackmail.
Yes, the COLB may be “legal” proof of citizenship, and it conveniently provides what Mr. Obama wishes for us to see and believe. Somehow, given his past behavior and the opportunities his past has presented, it seems that the COLB is not the whole truth. There are other documents out there that may tell another story, one that has been hidden from the public.
The invitation will remain open if you would like to pursue it at a future date.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is true both that no one has control of the conditions of their birth, and that birth and childhood conditions may have a profound effect on an individual. No one choses the location, parents, economic status or social status at birth. One is not allowed to chose one’s physical beauty, number of finger/toes, susceptibility to disease, innate intelligence, natural height at adulthood. A child cannot chose to be raised in an area where the sun shines all of the time, the schools are excellent, no toxic people live and it is always free of war, crime, drugs and environmental contaminants, natural or man made. In the United States, efforts have been successful to even the playing field for everyone, but there will always be differences in individuals’ abilities and backgrounds. For example, there is no surgery yet that can raise one’s IQ or a pill that reduces the age of one’s body. Isn’t it better that way? If everyone were the same, wouldn’t life be dull?
Jobs are simply work that must be performed, and an individual must have certain abilities to perform the work. With the differences that we naturally have, different people are qualified to perform different jobs. As of yet, a man cannot bear children. A person with back problems cannot do heavy lifting for long periods of time. A teacher must be able to read, write, and do arithmetic to teach others to do the same. A person confined to a wheel chair cannot assemble the steel frame for a skyscraper. A President must not have allegiance to any other nation so that he always acts for the good of the United States first and foremost.
Traditionally, allegiances has been associated with citizenship, family ties, and political/social ties. Passports have been associated with citizenship and holding the passport of a country is an admission of defacto citizenship. Even today, an individual swears allegiance to the nation that issues his passport. A person having more than one passport, implies that he owes allegiance to more than one nation, although truly serving as a citizen to more than one nation is difficult (HD can relate to this fact), and multiple allegiances could produce conflict or confusion in an individual. Multiple allegiances or any confusion whatsoever about one’s allegiance to the United States should be a disqualification for any one who wishes to serve as President. Anyone else in the government can have a less pure allegiance history, but the President holds great power and must be held to a higher standard of allegiance/citizenship.
The Framers of the Constitution would have agreed that the President holds great power and must be held to a higher standard of allegiance/citizenship. They warned of foreign influence as potentially destructive to the young country and sought to protect the country when writing the Constitution. The Framers did not recognize dual citizenship: there were no dual citizens in the newly born United States; a person was required to chose one citizenship. If dual citizenship was not allowed at the time that the Constitution was written, dual citizenship could not be addressed by the Constitution because it had no meaning. Individuals were either citizens or not citizens, black and white. Born citizens were either born with only one citizenship or not, black and white again. If a born citizen took another allegiance, he lost his primary citizenship and could only regain the primary citizenship by becoming a naturalized citizen. The Constitution specifies that the President hold a a special type of citizenship, the most singular citizenship required of any of the members in the US government. The special citizenship status required of the President alone certainly would not have been compatible with dual citizenship at any stage of a person’s life.
The definition of natural born citizen as it would have been understood by the Framers of the Constitution would be the valid legal definition today and will remain so until the definition is changed by an Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is the primary law of the land and all laws passed by Congress are inferior to Constitutional law. Unfortunately Mr. Obama does not fit the Framers definition of a natural born citizen at birth and very well may have lost any claim that he had to Constitutional natural born citizenship by casually acquiring/confirming foreign citizenships when he was twenty years old.
KJ:
Why?
We have a legal standard. Obama has met it. What reason would I have for investing any time whatsoever in humoring wild speculation regarding what passports he may have traveled under?
You seem to imagine it is a burning question. I do not share your concern. It would be, frankly, stupid of me to indulge wild speculation by engaging in it.
If you have actual evidence to support your “hypothesis,” by all means, provide it. You certainly do not need me to hold your hand as you do so.
Ignoring that what you characterize as “not all that revealing anyway” completely and perfectly meets the State Department regulations for proof of citizenship at birth, here’s your challenge.
1st… prior to the issuance of birth certificates there was nothing equivalent. Birth certificates established a standard for legal sufficiency and confidence that exceeded all previous documentation of birth… such as notations in family Bibles or church baptismal records. Baptismal records come closest, certainly, but still authoritatively reflect only an event other than the birth itself.
2nd… the revelation must have taken place in the context of proving citizenship. Because, that is, after all, the Birther demand here: that Obama prove his citizenship. The later inclusion of a birth record in an archive or Presidential library after the fact would hardly be comparable.
3rd… while the Internet certainly may not have existed, the mass print media certainly did. The pre Internet equivalent would have been (after the invention of photography) an image in a newspaper or other periodical, a widely reproduced or distributed pamphlet or handbill. Before the invention of photography, an engraving or transcription would do.
You must show where a president or presidential candidate was challenged on his citizenship, and what they provided in response. You have at least one instance where such a challenge actually took place; i.e. Chester A. Arthur. A couple of others might be Barry Goldwater and George Romney.
Knock yourself out.
The answer to both questions is, “No.”
To further extend the significance of that, my first duty assignment on commissioning was as a Nuclear Warhead Maintenance & Assembly Officer in a NATO unit in the Republic of Turkey. As such I had also been subject to the background investigation associated with my receipt of a Top Secret security clearance. They never asked for my birth certificate then either.
Black Lion says:
July 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm
If you wish to address my post, fine. Please do not address someone else’s post and claim to have addressed my post. I did not post as “Anonymous”.
Thank you.
KJ
HD:
I invite you, HD, to join me in pursuit of the truth via the scientific method. The scientific method has been used throughout history to winnow the truth from the noise. To obtain the truth with this method, one must be willing to put aside one’s preconceived ideas and to base conclusions only on the results of the tests (AKA experiments). You are welcome to form an alternate summary of as yet unproved hypotheses. Be careful when forming your statement because eliminating a hypothesis based on belief alone without evidence, i.e. on trust or faith, may falsely eliminate a true hypothesis. For now, allow me to start with the statement above to illustrate the method.
My proposed starting statement is simply a concise summary of hypotheses. The proposed starting statement above includes all the possibilities (hypotheses) that would be available to a minor individual with dual foreign and US citizenship, who required a passport for travel outside the US. In the absence of valid evidence, it is impossible to make this starting statement both concretely true and truly concrete. In other words, at the outset, it will be true that not one of the possibilities allowed by the statement has been firmly established as false or true by evidence that eliminates or confirms it.
For example, note that the statement above would include the view that Mr. Obama has held and used foreign passports and also the view that Mr. Obama has never held any foreign passport(s).
To find the true hypotheses, one must objectively test the hypotheses in order to find and eliminate only the false hypotheses. Without valid testing, false hypotheses may not be eliminated and true hypotheses may not be retained. A valid test is one that yields results that are both repeatable and identical in the eyes of multiple random observers.
For our specific case, hypothesis testing would require examination of physical evidence such as passport applications, entry and exit records, college records and similar documents. No other records will allow us to objectively determine which of the hypotheses can be eliminated.
Let us begin testing of our hypotheses. I have access no documents. Do you have any documents that you can submit for examination? Have you personally viewed any of these documents that could concretely eliminate one (or more) hypothesis? Can you cite any publications that contain a copy of any of these documents and/or a record of the documents viewed and what they contained?
I look forward to our pursuit of the truth using this time honored method.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the following:
I assume that you are referring solely to the COLB, which is not all that revealing anyway. I accept the challenge to determine if other Presidents have in fact revealed more. Of course they would not have been able to publish it on the internet, but only reveal it to some reporters a la McCain’s long form BC or place a document on public display. A newspaper article may have to serve as evidence that a document was revealed. Before birth certificates were issued, what would you consider to be its equivalent?
Allow me to ask a question concerning the process by which one enters the military, an experience that I have never personally had.
Did you have to bring a copy of your long form birth certificate with you when you joined the military? Did the military retain the copy or make a separate copy of your BC to keep on file?
Anonymous says:
July 22, 2009 at 5:37 pm
KJ says:
July 22, 2009 at 2:32 am
“Enough nonsense…..We know that Obama, by his own admission, was a citizen of Kenya at Birth. Everything about his “alleged” American citizenship is for him to prove.”
Ridiculous. Stop misquoting the what he said. He said that he was subject to the British Nationality Act and the following Kenyan Natuionality rules upon his birth. He never said that he was a Kenyan at birth. Being born in HI makes him an American. He has provided the only piece of evidence that he needed, the COLB. He has nothing else to prove.
“I know he is a Kenyan and an Indonesian by his own documents and statements.”
What documents state that he is a Kenyan? Can you provide a link to them? And only on alleged document has ever been produced that said claimed he was Indonesian. The infamous school registration form. And it states that he was born in Honolulu. So if you give creedence to the Indonesian fact, you must also give the same weight to the place of birth, Honolulu. Can you refute that? And as it has been shown, an American cannot lose their citizenship as a child thanks to the SCOTUS case Perkins v. Elg.
“However, the Jury is STILL out on if he is an American!!! My bet is that he isn’t and never was.”
How is the jury out? He was born in HI. He is an American. Case closed. Unless you can provide some documentation that says otherwise.
“We don’t know where his mother had the baby, but we do know the baby was a Kenyan.”
We do know where she had the baby, Honolulu. And because he was born in HI, he was an American.
So, enough of the hypotheticals…..about proof……..He is a Kenyan, I know this because he has acknowledged this.
Not true. If you disagree please provide the proof.
You don’t know if he took an oath to Kenya or not, upon turning 21 or older….being honest..You don’t know if he had any pre-existing Medical Conditions because he did not release those records either.
Since he is an American by virtue of being born in HI, it doesn’t matter about any so called oath. Regarding his medical records, many Presidents have refused to release their medical records. And it doesn’t affect whether or not he is eligible to be President.
Absent documentation of American Naturalization, He is a Kenyan and possibly still an Indonesian, and I doubt strongly that he is an American…& I know he is not a “Natural Born Citizen”.
Since he was born in HI, he didn’t need any naturalization documentation. American citizens born in the US don’t need them.
How can a Natural Born Citizen only provide documentation that he or she is a citizen of other countries but not the one he’s claiming???
No evidence has been provided that he was a citizen of any other country other than the USA.
NO Squatter’s Rights for “Natural Born Citizenship” Good Luck on peddling nonsense!!! You prove to me that he is an American, because you need the documents, not me!!! I take his word that he’s a Kenyan!!!
He doesn’t need to prove a thing to you. Only the Supreme Court and Congress. And they are OK with what he has provided. I will accept the COLB that he is an American.
KJ:
Why not?
Because it is nothing more than wild speculation. That’s why.
Well, you know that you are in the middle if both sides don’t agree with you!
Personally, I think that we should make a list of what we agree on. We all know what we disagree on. And we know perfectly well that neither side has any real proof to back up their asssertions. Doesn’t reading the same old stuff get old and fail advance our knowledge? Haven’t we vented enough? Isn’t it time to move on a little bit and find some common ground?
Why not start with:
This statement does not preclude Mr. Obama from only holding US passports. Neither does it preclude the possibility that Mr. Obama utilized a passport associated with another citizenship that he had a perfectly legitimate right to claim. To be completely accurate we would need to add: We do know that he held a special (Congressional?) US passport that he obtained as a US senator.
Everybody by this time realizes where everyone else stands. For example, the idea of a President having dual citizenships that he “tapped” for any purpose and having held passports issued by other countries after the age of majority gives me the willies. HD seems to think that using another citizenship for his personal/business convenience is fine. Apparently Earl would follow Mr. Obama no matter what he had done or will do. Arguing the same points over and over again with someone that you know is not going to hold a carbon copy of your views is rather nutty, don’t you think? So let’s find out where the gray is…
Are you game?
This is an excellent link.
The only problem I had with the report is near the end where they report that the HI DoH had “seen and verified” the original birth certificate, which is not what the entire statement said.
Other than that, coming from NBC, that was a fantastic story.
Darned rabble!
-Phil
Here’s that link to the NBC report… not broken this time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/32091472#32091472
NBC Nightly News w/ Brian Williams covered the Birfers tonight.
They got the story right.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/ … 2#32091472
Of course that last post was meant for KJ, not HD.
HD:
Don’t be so obtuse.
You know full well that the purpose of your post was to promote and sustain the fake Birther factoid that Obama has traveled on foreign passports. There is no evidence for such an assertion. Certainly no Birther has ever been able to come up with any.
It is what it always has been; wild speculation invented out of thin air.
What you personally don’t know is evidence of nothing beyond that you don’t know it.
KJ:
Note also that I am more than merely an “actual dual citizen.” I am both a dual citizen and a natural-born American citizen by even the most strict of Birther definitions. I was born on American soil to two parents both of whom were citizens and also born on American soil.
And, as an aside, both my parents got their passports based on COLBs, not long form birth certificates. Just thought I’d throw that in.
No.
In the order your questions were asked: No, no, no, no and no.
What you fail to realize is that for the vast majority of dual citizens it is neither for convenience nor taken seriously. For the simple truth is that most dual citizens do not even know that they are dual citizens at all.
Citizenship at birth (as opposed to naturalization) is a passive act. We do not have any say in what nations consider us their citizens at the moment of our birth. We are (I hope I am not belaboring the obvious) infants, and cannot be seriously considered to have an allegiance to anything or anyone beyond our mother’s breast. If more than one nation considers us their citizen at birth, for whatever reason, we are dual citizens and we will never be able to change the fact that this is what we were at birth. Even if we live a century and go to our graves unaware that this is what we are.
KJ says:
July 22, 2009 at 2:32 am
Enough nonsense…..We know that Obama, by his own admission, was a citizen of Kenya at Birth. Everything about his “alleged” American citizenship is for him to prove. I know he is a Kenyan and an Indonesian by his own documents and statements. However, the Jury is STILL out on if he is an American!!! My bet is that he isn’t and never was. We don’t know where his mother had the baby, but we do know the baby was a Kenyan. So, enough of the hypotheticals…..about proof……..He is a Kenyan, I know this because he has acknowledged this. You don’t know if he took an oath to Kenya or not, upon turning 21 or older….being honest..You don’t know if he had any pre-existing Medical Conditions because he did not release those records either. Absent documentation of American Naturalization, He is a Kenyan and possibly still an Indonesian, and I doubt strongly that he is an American…& I know he is not a “Natural Born Citizen”. How can a Natural Born Citizen only provide documentation that he or she is a citizen of other countries but not the one he’s claiming??? NO Squatter’s Rights for “Natural Born Citizenship” Good Luck on peddling nonsense!!! You prove to me that he is an American, because you need the documents, not me!!! I take his word that he’s a Kenyan!!!
Simple Interest says:
July 21, 2009 at 10:01 pm
JeffM says:
July 21, 2009 at 12:29 am
…“We know Obama was a citizen of Kenya when he was born, but his claim is that he was a dual citizen”. He will have to prove that he is an American citizen. Earl, Sue, Black Lion and others should take this argument under advisement since I continue to read about proof. There is proof that Obama was a Kenyan at Birth but there is insufficient proof that he is or ever was an American at any point!!! Great Posts!!!
Will you provide us with the proof that President Obama was a Kenyan at birth? Since no one else has been able to provide that, you must have the so called “smoking gun”. I have not seen one shred of proof that has even put President Obama in Kenya at the time of his birth. Think about it. No hospital records, no one there that witnessed his birth (and his step-grandmother does not count because she states that he was born in HI on that infamous tape). Jerome Corsi of WND has claimed numerous time to have evidence and it has never appeared. The same with Andy Martin.
However we have a COLB from the state of HI that says he was born there. We have 2 separate newspaper article that make the same statement. We have a US Congressman that remembers Obama as a young child in HI. Even the infamous Indonesian school record says that he was born in Honolulu.
So if we are comparing possibilities, it seems much more likely that the President was born in HI rather than Kenya. It seems next to impossible that the President was ever an acknowledged British, Kenyan, or Indonesian citizen. It is very probable that he was and still is an American.
KJ says:
July 22, 2009 at 2:32 am
“Can’t you guys simply accept that we simply don’t know what passports Mr. Obama has held and when he held them? My original comments were a simple statement of fact.”
There is no evidence that Barack Obama has ever held any passport other than a US Passport. Why don’t you accept that?
I challenge Any one of you to perform the kind of background check on former President George W Bush that you propose to perform on Pres Obama and see what documents you can retrieve just by public request. Report back to us what happens when you ask for his birth certificate, his school records, his financial records and his medical records. To make it easier because he is already deceased, I challenge you to also perform the same background check on former Pres Lyndon B Johnson and report back what info you can obtain through public records or his library. If you fail to accept the challenge, you have just proven that you know you cannot get same the information for any one of the other 43 that you seek for 44.
Phil,
I don’t see what happened to my comment so I’ll restate it (I didn’t see it in moderation. If it registered, you can delete it.)
“So if you are going to mention TARP, remember the AIG and Bank bailouts were under President Bush, not Obama.” (BL)
You made the assumption that I agreed with the bailouts. As for the wars, wars cost money. I won’t clog up the thread with that issue, except to say that Dennis Kucinuch should be your man. Although I disagree with his position, he is the only politician who has my respect in that regard.
http://washingtonindependent.com/47294/kucinich-war-will-be-the-last-thing-this-country-can-make
So if you are going to mention TARP, remember the AIG and Bank bailouts were under President Bush, not Obama. (BL)
You made the assumption that I agreed with these bailouts. As for the wars, they cost money. I won’t clog up the thread with the issue except to say that Kucinich should be your man. Although I disagree with his view, he is the only politician I respect in that regard.
I must have really hit a nerve with such a simple statement of fact, bare of interpretive comment or speculation.
Can’t you guys simply accept that we simply don’t know what passports Mr. Obama has held and when he held them? My original comments were a simple statement of fact.
For Historian Dude, a repost from
June 13, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Historian Dude:
No, I have never been in combat nor shot at as far as I know. I appreciate and thank you for your service to the United States. I am sure that you have served the US in many ways and have been an US active citizen.
I also appreciate your patience in allowing me to explore the idea of dual citizenship with an actual dual citizen.
Citizenship, as we are both aware, can require service by the government of a nation to a citizen and by the citizen to the government of a nation. You hold an Italian passport and have provided examples of how that passport issued to you by the Italian government has benefited you. Have you reciprocated with appropriate service to the government or people of Italy? You said that you would request a wavier of Italian military service. Have you voted in an Italian election or held an Italian office? Have you been an Italian government employee? Have you been a resident of Italy? Have any of your children been born in Italy? Have you paid Italian taxes or fees beyond the cost of requesting a passport?
It seems to me that dual citizenship, if taken seriously and not simply for convenience, presents conflicts for the dual citizen. The citizen must choose to reside primarily in one country, and choose in which country he will be an active or a more active citizen. He may always feel an obligation to both countries even if one citizenship is renounced. If both countries simultaneously request or demand service from the dual citizen, he or she must choose which country to serve. Dual citizenship cannot be equal citizenship in two countries, but must exist as a primary and a secondary citizenship. Is it necessary to declare which citizenship is primary to the governments of both countries?
JeffM says:
July 21, 2009 at 12:29 am
Your posts are sometimes beyond the audience you’re speaking with. Most of these individuals can be found at the protest rallies for troops returning home from war, some of the most Un-American speech I have ever heard because they are not commenting on the Constitution. They know and can comprehend the plain language of the Constitution but their positions, political or otherwise, are more important to them. That is exactly the type of person they voted for and support, someone who’s peddling un-Americanism from sea to shining sea; ocean to vast ocean; and continent to continent….how many good things did you hear this guy say about America while campaigning and since taking the so-called oath. It did not matter whether he’s in Germany speaking to drunks at a rock concert or even his reports like clinton now telling India that we’re responsible for global warming. These same people who simply despise America, where they set Race against Race, Religion against Religion, Citizenry against Citizenry, simply to divide and conquer. You keep the fight strong for our America, never to relinquish the hold to their America. As for me, we are not educating these individuals because in their eyes, they’re far beyond our comprehension—their intellects. These people hate America and our job is consolidate our union to withstand the assault by everyone who is looking for this “new” so-called America that Obama has promised, filled with pitiful people who can’t do anything for themselves–needing them to do everything for them. Some people who post here under various Screen-Names have placed their interest above any other resolve, impassioned with love for party or demographics and distain for America. The Court will soon open their doors to the very Document that established it and become the guardian of the Constitution. If Obama is constitutionally qualified, that is great!!! But if he is not….My concern is that everyone who is involved in this coverup, including those who sponsored the legislation about redefining the “natural born citizen” clause. Let me say this, does anyone think that the Democratic Congress, along with Democratic Presidential Candidates, felt the need to draft a piece of Legislation to determine if John McCain, a republican presidential candidate, is a natural born citizen, when one of their candidates was born as a citizen of Kenya. I think the Argument rests solely on this “We know Obama was a citizen of Kenya when he was born, but his claim is that he was a dual citizen”. He will have to prove that he is an American citizen. Earl, Sue, Black Lion and others should take this argument under advisement since I continue to read about proof. There is proof that Obama was a Kenyan at Birth but there is insufficient proof that he is or ever was an American at any point!!! Great Posts!!!
Elspeth says
July 21, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“There hasn’t been anyone coming forward saying Bush (1 or 2), Clinton, Reagan, etc., was born in Kenya, Canada, to a foreigner, adopted in another country, traveled on a passport from another country, or had ties with/under another country’s laws/citizenship.”
No they didn’t, so why are people repeating these debunked stories about Obama? Because all those things have been proven untrue.
“Did they sign executive order to block discovery of ALL historical documents related to their past like Obama has? I must have missed it if they did!”
Yes, yes Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush 2 all signed similar executive orders. The one Obama signed revised the policy on Presidential records back to the policy under Reagan. Where have you been Elspeth? Do you check things before you write them? Do you just regurgitate stuff you read somewhere else?
Obama has to prove himself, not us prove him.
You are innocent until proven in court of a crime, but you are not legally a citizen until you prove it yourself. The court or employment office does not run around trying to figure out your status. You prove it or you are not qualified.
Obama is not qualified until proven qualified. He has failed miserably to do so.
Those who support somebody hiding documents and support electronic forgeries as adequate documents, are supporting fraudulent and felonous behavior, and might want to think about their public statements supporting a major crime.
All their public statements are aiding and abetting fraud on the American public. Only a crook would support hiding basic documents. Crooks belong off the streets.
If Obama is such a coward he will not step into a courtroom and stand up for himself, and if he is so illegal he cannot pull out a little piece of paper the rest of us have, and so desparate he hires teams of lawyers to hide behind, I am surprised that anybody would blog in to these web sites and support such bizarre behavior, and let themselves be known as such frauds also.
Aiding and abetting fraudulent, felonous and treasonous behavior is subject to legal punishment also.