By the way, Media Matters has unveiled a new site solely devoted to attacking Lou Dobbs and CNN for turning the network over to birthers, which is another sign that the birther tale is good business both sides.
And as you might have noticed from the referenced link, now Congress is officially trying to get around the eligibility issue as Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) attempted to introduce legislation that not only recognizes the 50th anniversary of Hawaii as the 50th State, but declaring that Mr. Obama was born there (via OpenCongress.org):
While the struggle to pass health-care reform legislation continues as the biggest story in Congress right now, that other “news” story just won’t seem to die:
Dem Rep. Neil Abercrombieof Hawaii is going to introduce a resolution on the House floor today that seems designed to put House GOPers who are flirting with birtherism in a jam.
The measure Abercrombie will introduce commemorates the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. But here’s the rub, his spokesman tells me: It describes Hawaii as Barack Obama’s birthplace.
There’s been a lot of discussion on OpenCongress of late regarding natural born citizens, and whether President Barack Obama meets the criteria. But a few months ago, another piece of legislation also ruffled some feathers: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (H.R. 1868). Our summary of the legislation says, “This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen.”
This description was challenged by several readers, who argued there are very specific circumstances required for “natural born” classification. Mario Apuzzo wrote a lenghty post on the subject:
There is a critical difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution itself does not tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is. Hence, we simply cannot just apply the term to a given situation. Rather, we have to construe from the Constitution itself and other extrinsic sources such as historical events, constitutional debates, congressional debates, case law, statutes, and any other relevant information what the Framers meant by the term. The Constitution uses both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” It uses “Citizen of the United States” in Article II’s grandfather clause, giving such a citizen the right to be President, but only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It even says that a President must be a “natural born Citizen” (implying from birth) and a Senator or Representative need only be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 and 7 years, respectively (a fortiori showing that he/she could be a naturalized citizen). Basic rules of constitutional construction tell that the terms are not interchangeable. These rules also tell us that in construing the Constitution, special meaning must be given to the words “natural born.” We must give meaning to the Framer’s use of the words “natural born.”’
The Supreme Court ruled back in 1897 that citizens born on American soil, including those born to foreigners, are indeed citizens. The United States vs. Wong Kim Ark opinion contains a number of choice quotes regarding citizenship, pulling from English and French common law (and, it appears, contradicting the “international law” or “Law of Nations” mentioned by Apuzzo). Much of the language uses the terminology “natural born” or “native born.” For starters:
“It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.”
“But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, ‘citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,’ and ‘mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil.’”
And then there’s this citation in the opinion, from an English case on citizenship:
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
The court also strived to clarify how citizenship applied to persons born abroad to an American parent:
“These opinions go to show that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the executive branch of the Government, the one charged with the duty of protecting American citizens abroad against unjust treatment by other nations, has taken the same view of the act of Congress of 1855, declaring children born abroad of American citizens to be themselves citizens…
Finally, the court stated the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to clarify, once and for all, the citizenship question in the United States, and ruled thus:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution … contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
Of course, the issue still hasn’t been “settled,” more than 100 years after that decision was reached.
While the House attempted to pass the measure this afternoon, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) blocked the bill’s passage via a point of order stating that there wasn’t a quorum present to carry a vote:
This afternoon, the House was moments away from approving a resolution to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union that contains language declaring that President Obama was born in the state. But at the very last second, Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] swooped in and rescued the birthers from legislative defeat. Here’s the video from Think Progress…
According to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, the resolution, which is sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1] and co-sponsored by 8 Republicans, has been in the works since long before this current wave of birther conspiracy theories began picking up steam among conservatives. “Abercrombie is hoping to have it passed by the House before August recess because the real date of Hawaii statehood — August 21 — occurs while Congress is on break,” Stein reports.
The United States House of Representatives affirmed today that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. House Resolution 593 passed today 378-0. House Resolution 593 says “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii ”
HotAir.com — one site that hasn’t exactly been thrilled to cover the issue — opined the below regarding the above:
Dude, what if Ron Paul votes yes? Would that mean Birtherism’s too kooky even for the rEVOLution? Exit question: There’s going to be a full-fledged “Produce the Birth Certificate” third party once 2012 rolls around, isn’t there? And when they’re not allowed to participate in any of the televised debates, they’re going to whine forever.
More importantly, as ABCNews.com reports, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had the following exchange with liberal talk radio host Bill Press:
Today at the White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked by liberal talk radio host Bill Press if there was anything he could say to make the “birthers” go away.
“No,” he said. “The God’s honest truth is no.”
Gibbs said he almost hesitated to even bring it up in the “august” setting of the White House press room, and then decried the “made-up fictional nonsense of whether or not the president was born in this country.”
“If I had some DNA it wouldn’t assuage those who don’t believe he was born here,” Gibbs said, talking about how he posted the president’s birth certificate on-line last year to make the story go away, to no avail. “The President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth.”
Gibbs said there were 10,000 more important issues than to be debating a the president’s citizenship, “which has been proven ad nauseam.”
Why does it keep coming up? Gibbs was asked.
“Because for $15 you can get an internet address and say whatever you want,” Gibbs said.
And yet this is a story that persists – aided in no small way, White House officials say, by Republican members of Congress who have introduced legislation to require future presidential candidates to present copies of their birth certificates “to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications.”
Further, as I had reported earlier concerning the social networking site, Facebook, and as UPI has picked up, Dr. Taitz has been be-Friended by some high-profile notables:
The woman leading the movement challenging President Barack Obama‘s U.S. birth says she’s made some high-profile Republican friends on her Facebook page.Among those who asked to be her friend? Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, and Reps. Mary Bono Mack of California and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Politico reported.
“I am in total disbelief and greatly honored,” Orly Taitz, a Russian-born dentist-lawyer in Orange County, Calif., wrote on her blog Monday after Cantor appeared as one of her Facebook friends. “To me it means that the leadership of the Republican party understands the importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward.”
Charles Kerchner, the lead Plaintiff, makes the following commentary:
As I read these documents and the docket, the motion decision dates are now scheduled as follows: on or about 3 August 2009 on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and on or about 17 August 2009 on the Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to get leave from the court for the 2nd Amended Verified Complaint portion of the lawsuit Nunc Pro Tunc, which said motion the Defendants are opposing as the defendants want that 2nd Amended Verified Complaint stricken. Note: The 2nd Amended Verified Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants.
Atty Apuzzo will likely comment more on this later.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
News Update: Major Stefan Cook Files New Suit Seeking Verification of Legitimacy of Obama as President and Commander-in-Chief.
Tampa, FL. 07/26/2009 – Major Stefan Frederick Cook of Tampa, FL has filed an eight-count “Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief” in Federal District Middle Florida Court in Tampa, FL on 7/24/09. The attorney representing Major Cook is Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., a licensed attorney in California who has filed other cases around the nation seeking discovery of Barack Hussein Obama’s Constitutional qualification as a natural born citizen to be President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of the Military. Dr. Taitz, a licensed dentist in CA, also serves as legal counsel for presidential candidate and former Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes. Dr. Keyes filed a separate suit against Mr. Obama on January 20, 2009 that will be heard in Federal District Court in California by Judge David O. Carter. Keyes’ case is the firstcourt case in which a judge has agreed to hear the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. The date for Keyes’ hearing has not been set.
Major Cook’s most recent court filing (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3333 ) in Florida District Court follows a July 16 decision by Judge Clay Land in Federal District Middle Georgia Court in Columbus, GA to deny Cook’s request for injunctive relief. The Army moved quickly before that date of hearing to revoke his deployment orders to Afghanistan and Judge Land agreed with the Army’s counsel who argued that the case was then moot.
Asked about the new filing, Maj. Cooks responded: “I hope that this situation is resolved quickly and based on the merits of the arguments – not on the basis of procedural grounds. My expectations are that I shall ultimately be vindicated through either this injunction filed in Florida or through the case filed in California. I passionately want to restore faith in both the Constitution of the United States of America as well as its Government.”
Cook is seeking the Court to declare that his officer’s oath, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God,” requires him to challenge the chain of command if there is a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Obama is a possible Presidential Usurper. His filing asserts that Mr. Obama has taken the office of President under false pretenses of constitutional qualifications since he has withheld his original birth certificate that would verify his U.S. natural born citizenship and thus may be a “domestic enemy”, and “a clear and present danger as an enemy to the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.”
As evidence of his reasonable suspicion, Cook includes in his filing as an exhibit Mr. Obama’s Executive Order # 13489 which he signed on his first day in office as President on January 21, 2009 to permanently ban any and all access to his records. The filing includes other evidences to support his reasonable suspicion of Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualification: a sworn affidavit by professional investigator Neal Sankey that states that thirty-nine different Social Security Numbers have been registered to Barack Hussein Obama and a list of one hundred forty-nine different addresses belonging to Mr. Obama; a sworn affidavit by renowned forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines that states that “the certification of live birth posted by Mr. Obama as verification of his legitimacy, cannot be verified as genuine, and (the) original birth certificate, currently in the vault of the Department of Health of the state of Hawaii needs to be examined.”
Cook asserts in reference to the thirty-nine social security numbers that one SSN that Mr. Obama uses most often was registered to an individual in Connecticut whose current age is 119 years old. Further, Mr. Obama has never resided in Connecticut and that Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Madeline Dunham, worked as a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court Probate Department and had access to the social security of the deceased person to whom Obama’s most-used social security number was registered. This is circumstantial evidence, asserts Cook, “that casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Obama and his claims of being born on U.S. territory.”
Cook is also seeking the Court to order his employment reinstatement with his previous employer, Simtech, a Department of Defense contractor in Tampa, and protection from further DOD retaliation against himself, Simtech, and Larry Grice, the CEO of Simtech.
Defendants in this case are Simtech, Inc.; Larry Grice, CEO of Simtech; Col. Louis B. Wingate, Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis; Dr. Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense; and Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.
The date for the hearing has not been set. The filing demands a jury-by-trial according to the U.S. Code, Title 28, Part Five, Chapter 121, § 1861 and the Seventh Amendment.
Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, placed another advertorial in the Washington Times Weekly Edition today:
This is the second week in a row with the British Born additional key point about Obama … one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:
“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”
And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.
Mr. Kerchner has recently set up a web site, ProtectOurLiberty.org, wherein he is soliciting further donations to help defray the costs of placing these ads. The site goes into a full explanation of the costs involved as well as the types of advertising that is being supported by donations.
And on that same day he forwarded the following document to the Arizona Secretary of State:
The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of theirparents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
Obama - the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are - in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.
You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.
Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father, that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.
The states of Arizona and Virginia accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots. He was then elected President. The voters in Virginia and Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.
When Obama swore he was eligible, he lied. He didn’t swear that hemight be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible. He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false. He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was. He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.
On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS. He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say. But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess. The affirmations demanded that he swear he was - in fact – eligible to be POTUS.
A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation ahead of himself. Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law. The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.
The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election. Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself. He did no such thing. He swore something was true when he knew the truth was in doubt. Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.
Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.
[Thanks to reader "Lawyer" for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]
Dr. Orly Taitz, southern California dentist and eligibility activist and lawyer, recentlycommentedonher blog that a number of high-profile individuals have “be-Friended” her via her Facebook page:
The so-called “birthers” must be picking up some steam, as the Politico.com reports that there is evidence that GOP lawmakers are readying their stances should they have to be faced with the People:
And birthers say members should expect more of the same in the coming weeks.
“Absolutely,” says California resident Orly Taitz, the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement. “It is a very important issue, one that politicians should have taken up a long time ago.”
Moments after speaking with POLITICO Saturday, Taitz posted a call to arms on her blog:
“I believe it is a serious concern and I hope that each and every decent American comes to town hall meetings with a video camera and demands action,” she wrote.
Having seen his colleague Castle come under attack, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is taking no chances.
“Before I got back to Michigan before the break, we’ll go through it, so that we’re versed in it,” Hoekstra said recently. “Just like anything else, if you see a hot issue … it’s sort of like, ‘Let me go take a look at this and see what the status is.’”
Hoekstra believes there’s no “compelling case” questioning Obama’s origins. But after talking to Castle about his town hall, he knows that he’d better be ready with an answer.
The trick: What do you say?
Of the various approaches a put-on-the-spot pol can take, each carries its own risk of alienating constituents. Pick up a pitchfork in the cause of this conspiracy theory, and you risk damaging your reputation in the mainstream while aligning yourself with a movement some regard as having racist undertones.
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), co-sponsor of legislation that would force candidates to show their birth certificates, was widely mocked after he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that Obama is a U.S. citizen — “as far as I know.”
However, members who decide to challenge the conspiracy theory, as Castle did mildly, risk ticking off a shrill minority who can upend their events and then post the video on the Web.
And those who try to split the difference may find themselves getting doubly burned.
At a Wyoming town hall in April, birthers jumped on freshman Republican Rep. Cynthia Lummis.
“I’m not questioning your concern,” Lummis told the crowd, according to the Wyoming Eagle Tribune. “I am questioning whether there is credible evidence.”
The congresswoman ended up asking for anyone who had “evidence” to send it to her.
At a walk-in meeting in Sen. Tom Coburn’s Washington office, birthers gave the Oklahoma Republican’s chief of staff nine pages of documentation in support of their claims. The group later billed the meeting a success on one of Taitz’s blogs.
But when asked about the meeting, Coburn spokesman Don Tatro said that the office was simply trying to be “polite” and that “it is possible to mistake politeness for agreement.”
According to his office, Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn has received 33 inquiries about Obama’s origins, with 10 coming in over the past week.
So far, Hoekstra hasn’t faced any such questions.
“When you’re in a state with 15.2 percent unemployment,” he said, “most people have other things on their mind than this.”
But as if to illustrate the touchiness of the subject, Hoekstra quickly added: “Not that this isn’t important.”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has also tried to find the elusive middle ground.
“They have a point,” he said of the birthers last week. “I don’t discourage it. … But I’m going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America.”
Inhofe put out a statement Monday clarifying his comment:
“The point that they make is the Constitutional mandate that the U.S. president be a natural born citizen, and the White House has not done a very good job of dispelling the concerns of these citizens,” he said. “My focus is on issues where I can make a difference to stop the liberal agenda being pushed by President Obama.” …
Republican pollster Whit Ayers says that a member confronted with birther questions should immediately pivot the conversation back to big issues.
“You simply indicate that in a country where our fiscal policy is driving us toward bankruptcy, where we are wrestling with major issues of health care reform and fighting two wars for our safety, you don’t have time to deal with wild conspiracy theories,” he says.
That’s the approach House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana takes.
“On that issue, I’m pretty distinctive that the president is from Hawaii,” he said. “I just don’t know where he’s coming from on health care.”
Such a response might satisfy many, or even most, but Taitz says that until Obama is removed from office, America’s other problems cannot be addressed. The fact that a few members of Congress have taken up her cause, with 10 Republicans signing onto Floria Republican Rep. Bill Posey’s legislation to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, has only encouraged her to buckle down in the fight.
As Taitz sees it, Campbell, who represents her congressional district in Southern California, was moved to co-sponsor the “Birthers’ bill” for fear of people like her.
Campbell spokesperson Muffy Lewis flatly denied that being the case, saying the issue of Obama’s birth certificate is a low priority in the congressman’s district. Plus, Campbell has stressed that the bill would apply only to future candidates — and is really just about avoiding these kinds of controversies in the future.
“It really wasn’t as much about constituents as it was his own principles,” said Lewis. “He thought it was a common-sense bill. Castle had a major issue [in his district], but it hasn’t been much of an issue in ours.”
But Taitz said that lawmakers everywhere should be prepared to “resign or be removed” if they “do not have the guts to stand for the Constitution and this country.”
Asked whether Republican lawmakers should be “afraid” of the birthers, Taitz said: “I wouldn’t say the word ‘afraid.’ I think they should be willing to resign or be removed. That is what they should do. … Resign if you do not have the guts to stand for the Constitution of this country.”
Regarding the blogosphere, a concerned citizen going by the screen name “n152sm” drew my attention to one blogger who didn’t like their dissenting views so much, they got banned from the site.
I am not a nutcase or a racist, I present to you facts regardless of skin color or hypothetical assumptions. Your website has a quote at the top of the page: “all truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them”. With this article you are not following your own advice and I pray that you hear what I have learned in my research on this topic.
There are two issues with Obama’s eligibility that were raised before the DNC convention and before the election. They have been taken to the supreme court over 30 times prior to inauguration, only to be told that US citizens have no “standing” or proven “damages” that would allow the lawsuits to be heard. None of these lawsuits were heard based on the merits of fact.
Issue Number One: The only legally presentable definition of “Natural Born Citizen” (one of only three constitutional requirements to be President of the US), was written in Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations (original French version) years before the constitution was written. In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to confirm the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … 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.” (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)
We know that writers of the US Constitution and other democratic leaders around the world used this book as one of the primary references when writing the constitution. Example – Benjamin Franklin (a signer of our Constitution) wrote this in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?
This definition has been confirmed again in at least THREE US supreme Court cases: Minor v. Happersett (1874), US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Perkins v. Elg (1939)
If this is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” – then Obama is not qualified because his father was not a US citizen according to Obama’s own word.
Issue Number Two: Obama provided a “Certificate of Live Birth” that is provided by the Hawaii Department of Health and is the same certificate issued to CHILDREN BORN ABROAD. This means that unless he submits a Birth Certificate with the doctor and hospital listed – he cannot legally prove he was born in the US. Also, there are birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers listing Obama, however those newspapers confirm that they get all of their announcements from the Hawaii Department of Health, so if Obama was born outside of the US it would still be in the newspaper. Also, there have been comments about the Department of Health confirming that Obama was born in Hawaii – this is not true. Hawaii Health Department Director Fukino verifies that they hold Obama’s original birth certificate in accordance with the department’s policies, however the department nor director Fukino confirmed that he was actually born in Hawaii.
I have been researching this issue since before the DNC convention, and I beg you to provide a more factual investigation. If you doubt the facts I have presented, please comment and provide your sources and I will follow up….but please for the sake of your own intelligence – don’t call me a racist, nutcase, or sicko as you did in your article. Just stick to the facts. I am not having a hissy-fit, lying, pretending, or hating as you also mention in your article. I did my research because I felt I was being lied to – and a lot of US citizens think they are being lied to as well, so give them a fair shot at presenting factual evidence instead of rushing to judgment when you yourself do not have all of the facts.
First of all sir (or ma’am), I would like to thank you for taking the time to sit down and put your beliefs in writing.
The quote at the top of my blog is by Galileo Galilei, the brilliant astronomer.
I am honest enough to admit that I find it both distressing and supremely offensive the lengths that people will go to to try to discredit our Harvard educated black president who was born in this country. No other president or candidate (including John McCain, born in the Panama Canal) have been put through this nonsense over nothing. It is hysterics.
1. If President Obama was not a citizen, don’t you know that the Clintons would have shut him down, considering how badly she wanted the office of president?
2. I just went upstairs to my file cabinet and pulled out the folder that says “birth certificate”. There are two documents in there. Keep in mind that I was born in Baltimore, Maryland.
Document #1 (which is what was given to my mother when she left the hospital with me) is called “Notification of Birth Registration”. I recall it being rejected when I went for my drivers license many moons ago. They told me to go and order my birth certificate.
Okay, so what I was given and what was accepted by the MVA as well as the Post Office when I applied for my passport is as follows:
State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Division of Vital Records CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH
It goes on to give a state file number, my name and sex, date and place of birth (hospital is not named…only state)….my mother’s first, middle and maiden name and age and state of birth (West Virginia) and my father’s name and age and state of birth (Alabama). The time of my birth is also noted: 3:15 a.m.
NOTE that no place on the form does it mention “birth certificate”. It says exactly what our president’s says. CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH
No doctor is listed and it is NOT signed! However, somewhere on record is the original which I am certain IS signed. My birth weight is not even listed on my birth certificate.
So are you telling me that if I were to run for office, I would not be trusted due to having a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, as Obama has?
My husband was born and raised in New York and I have not seen his birth certificate; however, he told me that his does actually say “birth certificate”. It simply depends on what state you were born in.
3. Newspaper reports from that time verify that he was indeed born there
4. FACTCHECK.org has checked out the documents and verify that the birth certificate is authentic
5. The GOVERNOR of Hawaii checked out the documents (he is a Republican) and verified that they are real
What else does this black man have to do? He was born in Hawaii.
I would suggest that the “birthers” go find a hobby and get over the fact that their brilliant leader is a black man.
PRESS HERE to read the verification article by FACTCHECK.org …
Oh, and another thing.
For you to suggest that because President Obama’s father was not born in the country, then Obama (who WAS born here) could not possibly be a citizen is INSANE. INSANE. His mother was also born here by the way.
Do you know how many American citizens are walking around with fathers or mothers or BOTH parents born in China or India or Latin America, etc., yet THEY were born here and are citizens AND are eligible to run for office of the presidency?
Birthers, you are sounding reaaaaaal crazy. Please find a hobby!
Here is a point by point response to your response, I would like to make sure that you and I are on the same page and that you are not misinterpreting the facts I have provided you. I am being very specific….I am not meaning any insult – I trust you are a very smart person.
I understand he is Harvard Educated – do you know who paid for his education, or if he got a grant, what name and citizenship he submitted on his Harvard admissions records? No you don’t because he has them SEALED and will not release them. So are his Occidental College records, and much of his life’s history. Can you really say you have heard of him a year before the primary even when he was a Senator? We really don’t know this guy – and since he is hiding most of his past…one must be cautiously suspicious.
John McCain WAS put through a congressional whatever you want to call it because he was technically born in Panama. Even though he is a War Hero born to two US Citizens serving proudly in the Military on a US military installation overseas. One constitutional expert sued both Obama AND McCain as being technically not Natural Born Citizen for this reason. Also, No other presidential candidate has been allowed to run for office WITHOUT having two US citizen parents because generations have understood the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” requiring US Citizen Parents. (notice I am NOT talking about “Citizen” – Obama can be a Citizen of the US and be a Senator, but he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen which I provided you the history of the definition, understanding, and confirmation in the US Supreme Court via the previous post I made).
Answer to your item 1. I don’t think that many people understand the proper way of verifying or “vetting” a candidate’s qualifications. Is this done at the state level where they have to register to be a candidate? Does the party’s convention do it? Of course he has to be a citizen since he is a seated senator, he looks like he is over 35 years of age, and we assume he has been here 14 years. I am sure that it isn’t something competing candidates really go after, considering if they are wrong that they will basically self-implode in the polls. One Vice-Presidential nominee filed a lawsuit – his name is Alan Keyes, and he has a history in the US, he served under Reagan I think and has been on the political scene for a while.
Answer to your item 2. Your official documents may have come from a state that ONLY issues to children born in that state. The fact is that Hawaii issues these documents to children who have ALSO BEEN BORN ABROAD. So you do NOT know that he was born in Hawaii or in Kenya until you see an official ORIGINAL document that says the hospital and doctor with signature. Yes I am saying that if you refused to release a copy of your birth certificate (when questioned about your virtually unknown past because you have hidden everything else like Obama) I would not trust you.
Answer to your item 3. The newspapers have confirmed that they get their announcements from the Hawaii Department of Health. So – if Obama was born in Kenya, and the Hawaii Department of Health gives his mother a certificate of live birth, then the newspaper will print the announcement of the birth in the Hawaii newspaper. Do you see how this could happen but look very legit and cause people to wonder why people like me are questioning? Even if my suspicions are in fact the truth?
Answer to your item 4. You obviously don’t realize how close Obama and factcheck.org are. That is another discussion. But there is also some legitimate dissecting of the scanned image that shows that this document may have been altered, AND a story that leaked that the Hawaii Department of Health did not issue a paper certificate for Obama or the DNC in the year that they claim they got it. I think it would be best for all of us if he would submit that exact document in a court of law, do you agree?
Answer to you item 5. The governor of Hawaii is a woman not a man. Gov. Linda Lingle made NO statement acknowledging that Obama was born in Hawaii. I beg you to find one. She did however make a statement, as well as Dr Fukino of the Department of Health, and the spokeswoman of that department, that original doctor-generated and hospital-released birth certificate is on file with the state’s health department would be released to the press if Obama so requested. You will not be able to find a quote from any official that they have in fact verified that he was born in Hawaii, only that they have the birth certificate in accordance with their policies (refer to my answer above). I think Obama should request it be released, don’t you?
Don’t bring race into this. I am not a racist and you are insulting me to think that my argument has anything to do with race.
We obviously have to agree to disagree here – I don’t consider him my leader, and although I think he is a very bright guy, I think his strategy is not in the best interest of the American people. Again you mention race – I don’t think it makes you look good to refute my facts with racial remarks.
On your next remark – you are misquoting me. I didn’t say that his father had to be born in the US…I said that in order for Obama to be a “Natural Born Citizen” his father and mother had to be a citizen at the time Obama was born. That is the definition I provided you in the previous post and that is the constitutional requirement to be President of the United States. I am not saying he is not a citizen, however I am not saying that he IS a citizen considering he was adopted by an Indonesian and lived in Indonesia for years as a child. He could have revoked his US citizenship, traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport, and received US federal grants for education provided to foreigners for Occidental AND Hahvaad (oops, Harvard). But I can’t prove that, and you and others cannot prove otherwise until we see the documents.
Again, you are trying to argue against my facts by calling me crazy, why don’t you just stick to the facts. And Again – this really has nothing to to about whether he is a US citizen – you have to be a Natural Born Citizen which has been defined as one born on a country’s soil to parents who are citizens of that country. His mother was a citizen, his father was NOT a citizen, and so it doesn’t matter if he was born in the US but we aren’t REALLY sure he was born in Hawaii anyway.
Let me know if you can find facts to dispute this. I will add them to my research.
When you realize that people are stuck on whatever their false belief is, it would be beyond insane to keep engaging the person.
So now FactCheck.org is “friends” with Obama and that is why they were able to check out the documents and prove it’s authentic.
The conspiracy is sooooo deep that even the governor of Hawaii (a republican) is in on it…and of course his mother knew when he was a baby that he’d run for president so she quickly put in a birth announcement in the local newspapers.
Okay. Whatever. I’m through with this. Thanks for taking the time to share your views. …
By the way, this “N152sm” character is obsessed with Barack Obama. A Google search showed numerous boards he is on to discredit our president. I really wish this guy would find a hobby. Nascar?
1. Don’t come into my “house” making little snide remarks
2. Don’t come in here telling me what quotes I need to remove on something I’m paying for out of my pocket
Why are you still coming here? I gave you space to spew forth your vomit.
You are barking up the wrong tree, as the people here have written you off as a lunatic.
I posted links to other blogs to show your obsession with President Obama.
BANNED – Don’t come back here. Take it elsewhere.
Door slammed! Comments on this thread are closed.
While I believe that Lynn has every right to manage her site as she sees fit, and while site banishment of users occurs on both “sides” of the eligibility issue, I think the casual observer of my site will see quite the contrast between how this individual deals with opposition commentary versus how I do. In other words, I take pride in the fact that my site has hosted quite the vigorous debate between those who think eligibility should be questioned versus those who don’t, as long as such discussions remain civil. And, to date, I’ve actually banned nobody from my site.
On a more positive note, I appreciate the fact that Sean and Frank of Talk Radio 680 WCBM has TRSoL listed as one of their Favorite Sites. I’ve added that to my collection of notable sitings in my In The Media page.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga: