Certifigate: OMG! Where’s the Transparency, Mr. President?
The chattering class may be coming around to that “OMG” moment that Rev. Sam Sewell originally wrote about back in April: “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.” Or, as I’ve been promulgating since I started this blog, individuals are beginning to question the fundamental premise of eligibility, not that it’s solely encapsulated within a piece of paper called a birth certificate or even a certification of live birth (though we certainly shouldn’t impugn these records, for what they’re worth).
This is a constitutional issue enshrined under the auspices of what most Americans have conventionally taken so much for granted — the transparency of those individuals who have ever been ambitious enough to seek the highest office in the United States. In short, the willingness on the part of our leaders to be thoroughly examined. And as we’ve seen through the myriad postings and commentary not only on this site but on many others, simply because there is no legal requirement to enforce such transparency does not mean that there’s no fundamental right of the People to question their leaders for a full and fair examination of those individuals’ backgrounds.
While I have been documenting many instances where the chattering class and others have tenaciously castigated those of us who question this President’s eligibility in particular and background in general, evidence is beginning to appear that maybe such questions aren’t completely … “fringe.”
HotAir.com reports from polling done by DailyKOS, a prominent far left-wing forum, shows that, for the GOP, 58% of respondents either don’t believe or don’t know whether or not Mr. Obama was born in the US:
On the one hand, the poll was sponsored by … Daily Kos. On the other hand, Research 2000 is a reputable pollster as far as I know and the way they posed the question wasn’t slanted.
The survey of American adults asked, “Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?” It found that 77% of Americans answer affirmatively, 11% say “no,” with the balance unsure.
Notably, that 11% closely tracks the — extremely stable — share of the electorate that thought Obama was a Muslim, bolstering the notion that there’s a certain share of the party’s base (and this may well hold for both parties) that isn’t about to let facts get in the way of negative views of a president of the opposite party…
With nearly a third of Republicans believing the theory, you can see why Republican politicians are inclined to treat it with some respect.
Party-line breakdowns: Dems 93/4/3 (the last figure is “don’t know”), Indies 83/8/9, and GOP … 42/28/30. Fully 58 percent of Republicans aren’t willing to accept a state-issued Certification of Live Birth as proof that The One was born in Honolulu? I’m skeptical, but, er, not so skeptical that I’m willing to poll this myself at HA. Sounds like a job for Scott Rasmussen. How about it, Scottster?
Update: Voinovich 1, Vitter 0.
Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners.
Wow.
According to attorney Leo Donofrio, the situation is not helped when otherwise venerable Wall Street Journal posts an article by James Taranto suggesting that the words “natural born citizen” are in certain laws when, in fact, they’re not:
Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers. In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text. Here is the offensive passage:
“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”
No such law exists.
The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.
The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…
The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.
Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell. His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.
Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper. His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.
But that’s not what Taranto has done.
Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law. He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.
Let’s call that what it is – propaganda. They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent. No. This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.
The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”. Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.
And that is journalistic evildoing personified.
Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth. If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.
Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President. All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President. The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.
Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face. The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.
Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided. Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.
The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.
We aint in Kansas anymore, people. [emphases original]
Professor of Political Science and Law Carol M. Swain of Vanderbilt University writes today that Mr. Obama’s keeping his personal documentation hidden runs afoul of transparency (via ExpertClick.com and cross-posted at LibertarianRepublican and TheSteadyDrip):
The President of the United States belongs to the people. A lot of Americans are troubled by sealed records. Some feel that if the President has nothing to hide, then why not release the original birth certificate and open other sealed records: educational, foreign travel passports, and state legislative records. A birth certificate is a tangible document issue that everybody can relate to. Most of us have one tucked away in our home. It’s needed for public benefits as well as school admission and passports. Mine has the exact moment I was born, the city, hospital, and attending physician. What is posted online for President Obama is a certificate of live birth. The birth certificate issue will not disappear. It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive.
Below is a quote from a white friend about the matter:
“I’m struggling with this one when it comes to questions of character. Obama has been deceptive in other matters so it is difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Something isn’t quite right. If there is nothing to hide then why seal it? If there is nothing revealed if unsealed then what was going on while we were waiting…and WHERE was it going on? I sense deception somewhere”
I am perplexed by sealed records in the President’s background. It is a biographer’s nightmare and it hampers scholars and constrains the narrative that we tell future generations. I have not heard a compelling reason for the White House’s refusal to honestly address the sealed documents. One reporter said it “makes political sense for Obama to allow the discussion to continue because it distracts and weakens his opponents. It also seems that nothing would satisfy the birthers. It all adds up to, “why bother?” I strongly disagree with this reporter’s position, and the well-orchestrated strategy to crucify and vilify Americans who raise the issue.
Is there any merit to the story?
No, but it has legs as long as the President refuses to release his sealed documents. The White House strategy may be part of a well orchestrated smokescreen to divert public attention from other sealed documents. But I hardly see the strategic advantage to the President of letting the issue be debated around kitchen tables and on the Internet. I believe the President should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background. In fact, it can be argued that the President belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers, and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.
What’s up with Dobb’s derogatory remark about Rachel Maddow?
Calling Rachel Maddow a tea-bagging Queen was certainly a crude choice of words. Dobbs was clearly incensed by the twisting of his words and the misrepresentation of his position about the birth. I think the issue is being used strategically to shut Lou Dobbs down because of his criticisms of the President and his position on illegal immigration.
Regarding Prof. Swain’s characterization of how the opposition goes about “crucify[ing] and vilify[ing] Americans who raise the issue” (simply read my blog for copious amounts of evidence to this assertion), The Huffington Post has the following post from Mark Joseph, remarking that it really is bizarre how the “anti-birthers” (I’ve called them “illegitimizers”) have maligned the “birthers” for asking questions:
The only thing weirder than the Birthers are the anti-Birthers, who blame the Birthers for being conspiracy theorists yet actively feed the conspiracy by refusing to call for President Obama to release his birth certificate.
The state official in Hawaii who manages such things has reiterated that there is indeed an original birth certificate on file which would confirm President Obama’s having been born in Hawaii and that she has seen it, but state law won’t allow her to release it unless the president authorizes it.
So what’s the problem here? Release the original and let’s be done with this madness.
I realize there are some faith-based Obama supporters who believe without seeing, but the rest of us in the reality-based world are starting to get that strange feeling we got when Mark Sanford tried to convince us that he was away from his family on Father’s Day, hiking the Appalachian trail in order to clear his head and write a book.
During the last campaign, John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate. That’s how normal people with nothing to hide handle these things.
Most American’s aren’t Birthers or anti-Birthers, but we are beginning to wonder why the president doesn’t put this one to rest once and for all. Every day he allows this circus to continue is another day that he behaves less like the President of the United States facing weird accusations from fringe groups and more like a strange politician flying to Argentina to visit his soul-mate while pretending to be hiking the Appalachians.
Jeff Schreiber at AmericasRight.com — whom I had previously taken to task over a slight bout of irrationality I thought he was experiencing with respect to eligibility — appears to have swerved back around by way of the overarching concept of transparency.
In his posting, he refers to Andrew McCarthy’s NationalReviewOnline.com posting entitled, “Suborned in the U.S.A.” The 4-pager article is well worth the read, as it provides ample context for its thesis, the byline “[t]he birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born” (certain excerpts below):
…These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider National Review’s leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with Tuesday’s editorial, “Born in the U.S.A.”
The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.
The mission of National Review has always included keeping the Right honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories. The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff. Even Obama’s dual Kenyan citizenship is of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action on his part (to think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that if Yemen passed a law tomorrow saying, “All Americans — except, of course, Jews — are hereby awarded Yemeni citizenship,” only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for president). In any event, even if you were of a mind to indulge the Kenyan-birth fantasy, stop, count to ten, and think: Hillary Clinton. Is there any chance on God’s green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out?
CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATION
So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.
On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”
To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”). The certificationform provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed. This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”
To the contrary, “the state records” are the certificate. They are used to generate the more limited birth certifications on request. As the Jeffers post shows, these state records are far more detailed. They include, for example, the name of the hospital, institution, or street address where the birth occurred; the full name, age, birthplace, race, and occupation of each parent; the mother’s residential address (and whether that address is within the city or town of birth); the signature of at least one parent (or “informant”) attesting to the accuracy of the information provided; the identity and signature of an attending physician (or other “attendant”) who certifies the occurrence of a live birth at the time and place specified; and the identity and signature of the local registrar who filed the birth record.
Plainly, this is different (additional) information from what is included in the certification. Yet, our editorial says that “several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate [by which we clearly meant ‘certification’],” and that the “director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate [i.e., certification] is identicalto that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.” (Italics mine.)
That misses the point. The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.
Now, let’s address motives for a moment. Are some of those demanding the full state records engaged in a futile quest to prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen? Are they on what the editors call “the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of [Obama’s] election and presidency disappear”? Sure they are. But not everyone who wants to see the full state records falls into that category. I, for one, have very different reasons for being curious. …
The fact is that Obama’s account of his background is increasingly revealed as a fabrication, not his life as lived; his utterances reflect the expediencies of the moment, not the truth. What is supposed to save the country from fraudulence of this sort is the media. Here, though, the establishment press is deep in Obama’s tank — so much so that they can’t even accurately report his flub of a ceremonial opening pitch lest he come off as something less than Sandy Koufax. Astonishingly, reporters see their job not as reporting Obama news but as debunking Obama news, or flat-out suppressing it. How many Americans know, for example, that as a sitting U.S. senator in 2006, Obama interfered in a Kenyan election, publicly ripping the incumbent government (a U.S. ally) for corruption while he was its guest and barnstorming with his preferred candidate: a Marxist now known to have made a secret agreement with Islamists to convert Kenya to sharia law, and whose supporters, upon losing the election, committed murder and mayhem, displacing thousands of Kenyans and plunging their country into utter chaos? …
WHEN DID INFORMATION SUDDENLY BECOME A BAD THING?
While it is all well and good to belittle the birth-certificate controversy, without it we’d know only what the media and Obama himself would tell us about his multiple citizenships, which is nothing. As noted above, we now know Obama, by operation of British and Kenyan law, was a citizen of Kenya(a status that lapsed in 1982, when he turned 21). That’s something voters would find relevant, especially when Obama’s shocking 2006 conduct in Kenya is considered. But we don’t know about his Kenyan citizenship because the media thought it was newsworthy. We know it only because of the birth-certificate controversy: Pressed to debunk the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, his embarrassed supporters felt compelled to clarify his Kenyan citizenship.
By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an Indonesian passport — for example, during a mysterious trip to Pakistan he took in 1981, after Zia’s coup, when advisories warned Americans against traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of autobiography, even though the 20-year-old’s adventure included a stay at the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.
There may be perfectly benign answers to all of this. But the real question is: Why don’t the media — the watchdog legions who trekked to Sarah Palin’s Alaska hometown to scour for every kernel of gossip, and who were so desperate for Bush dirt that they ran with palpably forged military records — want to dig into Obama’s background?
Who cares that Hawaii’s full state records would doubtless confirm what we already know about Obama’s birthplace? They would also reveal interesting facts about Obama’s life: the delivering doctor, how his parents described themselves, which of them provided the pertinent information, etc. Wasn’t the press once in the business of interesting — and even not-so-interesting — news?
And why would Obama not welcome Hawaii’s release of any record in its possession about the facts and circumstances of his birth? Isn’t that kind of weird? It would, after all, make the whole issue go away and, if there’s nothing there, make those who’ve obsessed over it look like fools. Why should I need any better reason to be curious than Obama’s odd resistance to so obvious a resolution?
There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.
But we should know. The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?
As a final word for those who oppose such questioning, realize that there are legitimate questions regarding this President’s background that simply have not been answered. Clearly, eligibility is a part of that mix, no matter how much anyone wants to fight over this fact. Yes, it’s true that the President is not obligated to furnish anything to those of us who question him. Yet, this may not be the wisest course of action in the long run.
I think that a historical quote forwarded to me by a concerned citizen put it best:
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, Spring of 1868
“May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!…I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law…”
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)
Phil:
Let no irony go unsmelted.
qwertyman,
People continue to laugh at the Obama eligibility issue, too. But the saga continues.
-Phil
I forgot to mention that I am not a single mom. I was the one handed all the papers, though. I could have handed them off, but I didn’t. Husbands in this era are much more involved in the baby business at the hospital than they would have been in 1961.
I have 3 children, two born in one hospital and one another. I was given the birth certificate each time and filled them out. I guess I know how to multitask.
Phil and Benaiah,
“Using that reasoning, we should stop not only using the Constitution, per se — because it recognizes slavery — but also the Bible, in that it not only recognizes slavery, but describes exactly how their masters are to treat them.”
If you point out when the Dred Scott case was amended to make it in accord with the Constitution, then I’ll back off.
The Constitution was flawed in tolerating slavery, the 13th and 14th Amendments forever stopped the practice. The 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship explicitly overruled Dred Scott. Given that Dred Scott is widely believed to be the absolute worst decision in American Supreme Court history, it seems ironic that Benaiah would cite it so often as support for his definition of citizenship.
Citing Dred Scott in support of any current legal argument will get you immediately laughed out of a courtroom, law school or any place with common sense.
“Phil,
I was an artilleryman in the 82d Airborne division. I jumped out of planes. I did not fly them.”
I will have to say thank you twice for your service to your country.
Pete
Phil:
Sharon 2:
Do you have children? I have two. Both born in (different) American Hospitals.
In both cases, I filled out the forms. My wife was (as you might imagine) otherwise occupied.
HistorianDude,
That explains plenty.
-Phil
C.n.natus:
Wonderful. Now… let’s see you defend it’s authenticity without being ironic?
Well that’s a very good sign. You are at least aware that you cannot defend the authenticity of this BC without being a total hypocrite regarding your own previous criticism of the COLB. You are wise to recognize your vulnerability and go on offense rather then defense. No need though.
I am perfectly willing to forgive you for your unfortunate earlier errors and allow you to take them all back if you so choose.
But as for me, I am not (at this time) going to have a single critical comment regarding this BC. But I can promise you that when I do, my criticisms will bear no similarity to any Birther criticism of the Obama COLB.
Okay. I’ll correct you again since you appear to have missed it last time.. I am not an ex-Marine Pilot. I was not and Air Force Pilot either. Before you end up going through every other branch of the service, I have also never flown in the Navy, Army or Coast Guard either.
I was an artilleryman in the 82d Airborne division. I jumped out of planes. I did not fly them.
Phil says:
August 2, 2009 at 10:59 am
“I am what is sometimes classified as a “young earth” creationist.”
Thought so.
HD,
Yes, I can cite a single piece of evidence that shows Zero was not born in Hawaii.
E. g. The Kenyan Registration of Birth, now on line at World Daily Net, which says Barry was born in Mombasa!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
Now, before you launch into a criticism of this BC, remember that you cannot honestly use any argument against the authenticity of an online jpg, that you reubtted in the case of Obama’s COLB, unless you have personally seen one or the other of these documents.
Being that you are an ex-Marine Pilot, I expect you to be honest!
rrobin’s reference to a digital image of a Kenyan birth certificate is quite interesting.
That document is official. It’s certified and embossed by the government of Kenya.
So isn’t it the evidence that some have been asking for? EVIDENCE that he was not born in Hawaii?
If you answer no, then why not? Wouldn’t this digital image be AS real and AS authentic as the digital image of a COLB at FactCheck?
Dueling digital images of supposedly authentic birth certificates!
How do we determine which is real? Why, we let a court of law subpoena any and all documents and also anyone who may have testimony to give under oath concerning the reality of where and when he was born, and to whom.
Interesting date on that Kenyan document. The date places its creation right around the time that Stanley Ann Obama was getting a Hawaiian divorce from Barack Hussein Obama. Right about the time when she may have needed proof of the birth of their son for the Hawaiian court. We do know that the divorce papers referenced one child as issue of that marriage: Barack Hussein Obama II.
rrobin: Thanks for pointing out that interesting digital image.
The issue of whether or not Obahmadinejihad is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born Citizen”.
The phrase “natural born Citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” [Paragraph 16 of Wong Kim Ark].
The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” is plainly expressed in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quotes Vattel, and explicitly states, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”
Suffice it to say, Obahmadinejihad is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, as his father was a “foreigner”…
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
[419] Again:
[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
Read about the Kenyan BC here!
rrobin says:
August 2, 2009 at 8:55 am
Speaking of that OMG moment, Phil – Dr. Orly Taitz has just entered into evidence a copy of AKA’s Kenyan birth certificate, along with a motion requesting authentication.
There is a copy of this motion, filed 8/1/2009 in the Keyes v. Obama case, on her site.
She would not be entering such a document into evidence in a court of law if she had not already independently verified that it was real – and I HAVE already heard news about that verification also!
OK, Phil, all together now – OH MY GOD!!!!!!!
—————
I tried to access Orly’s site, and receive a message that her site has been attacked. The following may be the copy of the Kenyan BC referred to. It is a photo of the cert. on Scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/03118509265
DCA,
First, please cite where I ever said that “you could fake a birth announcement ih a HI newspaper.” I don’t think I ever typed in those words anywhere on my site.
Secondly, please cite where I ever said that “you said you could get them to print an announcement for a unicorn.” I don’t think I ever typed in those words anywhere on my site.
Thirdly, you claim that I “eleminated” such postings. Regarding this, realize that on Wordpress blogs, postings are what anyone first sees when they visit my blog. This is different from commentary, which is what individuals can potentially “post” to the referenced posting.
I have never eliminated any commentary on my blog except in those cases such as HistorianDude, earl, and certain other individuals who have been harassing my site and the readers thereof. And, technically, that commentary never made it to the public domain; it was only ever in moderator queue for my perusal.
-Phil
rrobin,
I’d like to receive sourcing on that.
-Phil
MaineSkeptic,
I think I’m quite tired of the interrogatory questioning being done to me on my blog. I think I’ve already put on public record, via this same blog, exactly what my stances are regarding the eligibility saga.
-Phil
Joseph Maine,
As a mere concerned citizen to this saga, I haven’t a clue as to the chances.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Let’s not be so disingenuous, Black Lion. As you are well aware (considering your commentary on other opposition sites to mine), there are specific individuals who comment on my site who are not interested at getting to the truth; they are interested in implementing Alinsky’s Rule #5 which, essentially, requires said individual to intimidate by any means necessary those with whom they disagree by simply embarking on a crusade of ad hominems in hopes that said individual can get the receiver to do or say anything that said individual can use against the receiver.
This shall no longer be tolerated on my site. As soon as I see any verbiage to the above effect, the Delete option will be pressed without a second thought.
I think you already know this. I don’t think you need to begin playing coy on my site. After all, I’d really hate to have to lump you in with those specific individuals.
-Phil
earl,
I am what is sometimes classified as a “young earth” creationist.
-Phil
earl,
Assuming that this question is directed to me, and while I’ve already responded to a previous comment of yours that you’ll soon be seeing, and while I know you’ve been around my blog for long enough to have seen my essential treatise on how I manage my site, I shall repeat it once again:
1. This is my site and I will manage it as I see fit;
2. If you don’t like the way I manage my site, then you can either go start your own or simply go find another site upon which you can attempt to dictate how you think things should be run.
-Phil
qwertyman,
Using that reasoning, we should stop not only using the Constitution, per se — because it recognizes slavery — but also the Bible, in that it not only recognizes slavery, but describes exactly how their masters are to treat them.
-Phil
Mike,
The “South” has also grown rather Libertarian in its political stance as of the last several years. Libertarians, by definition, care more about the Constitution than they care about political parties or who’s toes are going to get stepped on (could be part of the reason that, until recently, they’ve always been looked down upon) when it comes to actually following the rule of law, no matter how small the clause.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
I think I have already answered this multitudinous times on my blog. If you cannot accept any answer that I give you with the question you’ve posed (despite the fact that you absolutely insist — via Alinsky’s Rule #5, no less — upon harassing me with repeated questions over and over again because you don’t like how I answer), then that is your problem, not mine.
-Phil
sue,
Absolutely. The longer I stand, the more infuriated the opposition becomes with questioning this President.
-Phil
brygenon,
Correction: “He” (whomever it was) offered an actual document, the authenticity of which we can only trust one source — FactCheck.org.
-Phil
In a nutshell, you got nothing.
Evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii:
1. A state issued and certified COLB
2. Two contemporary birth announcements.
3. An authoritative statement by the Director of the Hawaii department of Health.
4. The testimony of Obama himself.
5. The testimony of his sister.
Evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii:
1. ___________________________________
OK you said you had evidence. Put up or shut up.
Please fill in the blank with evidence a court would accept just like they would 1 through 5. Thr fact is you can’t. The courts have rejected your cases and the SCOTUS bounced it without comment as well as 100% of all other cases.
You also said you could fake a birth announcement ih a HI newspaper (specifically claimed you said you could get them to print an announcement for a unicorn- you then eleminated the post later after the DoH confirmed ir provides the papers with the information – and did so in 1961. Now I wish I had screen grabbed it)
Speaking of that OMG moment, Phil – Dr. Orly Taitz has just entered into evidence a copy of AKA’s Kenyan birth certificate, along with a motion requesting authentication.
There is a copy of this motion, filed 8/1/2009 in the Keyes v. Obama case, on her site.
She would not be entering such a document into evidence in a court of law if she had not already independently verified that it was real – and I HAVE already heard news about that verification also!
OK, Phil, all together now – OH MY GOD!!!!!!!
Obama can never be natural born because of his father assuming that was his father. He has said he is his father. He wrote a freaking book about him being his father. Show us the BC Obummer.
Phil — you said:
“I am aware of the existence of documentation that could potentially show where Obama was, in fact, born. However, at this time, as I’ve said previously and many times before, the public does not have access to this known-to-exist documentation.”
Let me make sure I understand. You are sure the documentation exists, but can only say “that [it] could potentially show where Obama was, in fact, born.” [italics added] In other words, it may or may not be the evidence that HD was asking about.
So am I right in saying that the answer to his question is that there may or may not be a single piece of evidence that shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii?
Phil, you said, “For the purposes of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, since there is no legal enforcement mechanism of this clause, should Mr. Obama be shown to not be a natural born citizen, he would simply be rendered incapable of holding the office. With no law to enumerate the consequences of such ineligibility, there is no crime, per se, committed.”
You know I agree that what you state first is fact and that what you follow up with seems to be reasonable if not totally true. As an extension of that, not only do we not have an enforcement mechanism as a base, we don’t even have any sort of idea as to what constitutes an NBC, legally. Put better: What makes one eligible? Ineligible? We don’t have anything clear cut. While I think we both believe that one needs to have 2 American citizen parents and be born on US soil at time of birth, that is our opinion at this time, however well based it may be. God knows that things like Roe v. Wade and the 14th Amendment can’t possibly have been what the fathers intended or they are bastardizations; yet they are codified at this point in time.
Obviously, it seems most people believe that one has to be born here to be NBC (some leave it at that). Yet we still don’t know for sure if that’s even the case. Put simply, if a Schwarzenegger ran for President and the people were willing to look past his birthplace, it would have to go to the Supreme Court (I guess the Secretaries of State could place or not place him on the ballot, but it doesn’t seem like they are too vigilant these days) as an eventuality.
In summary, not only does no agency check, they can’t even “really” check because there is no criterion settled on which to check! I think the first fact proves the second. Sadly, the people are truly the fourth branch here, which is said because the people have no subpoena power.
What do you think about Apuzzo’s chances on Monday?
JM
DE LIMA v. BIDWELL., 21 S. Ct. 743, 182 U.S. 1 (U.S. 05/27/1901)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[188] It is upon the Government that the Constitution acts directly.
Thus, the Constitution of the United States “acts directly” upon “the Government”… DE LIMA v. BIDWELL.
Hence, when “the Government” is the defendant in an action which “arises under the Constitution”, the “Constitution” “acts directly” upon “the Government” to create the standing for the full force and effect of the judicial power to extend to the case…
Article III, Section 2 states, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…”
Regarding HD’s list:
1, 2, 4, 5–each assumes facts not in evidence.
3–a statement. Nothing else. It does not constitute proof of natural born citizenship.
Look! Obama has “birther” in him!
Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.
Barak Obama
September 22, 2005
No, that is NOT the truth. The parents provide the information for the birth certificate of the child. Mr. Obama, President Obama’s father would have stated that his race was African and here is why:
etc.
****
Historian Dude already covered this. I guess Politijab is the “club”?
Do you know that Obama Sr. filled out the certificate? The mom is usually the one handed the certificate, if she had the baby in an American hospital as you believe. Now, being that she is not an African, using that term would not have been something that she would have considered in the same light as Obama Sr.
Evidence has been requested that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The Obots cite statement from Obama spokes people and Hawaiian officials carefully parsed statements that he was born there. Well there are quotes from Obama’s paternal step-grandmother in Kenya and Kenyan officieals that he was born in Kenya.
Evidence that Barack Hussen Obama II was born in Kenya and not born in the USA.
Source: http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
—————————————————–
According to people’s accounts in Kenya when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate, it was common knowledge in Kenya that Obama was born in Kenya
Now we have some more breaking news on Obama’s Kenyan birth made by the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S. on 21 Nov 2008:
Obama born in Kenya is not disputed and is acknowledged by the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S. Here is a YouTube replay of the radio show call to the Kenyan Ambassador. Listen to it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14
Original show complete show tape at radio station:
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
Add the above acknowledgments by the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S. to the prior videos and voice recordings of Obama’s Kenyan paternal grandmother’s own words such as these below. You decide. I for one definitely want to see the long form, original birth certificate filed in Hawaii to see what it says and doesn’t say. Barack needs to pony up and release it.
http://www.youtube.com/v/-4FqVRWgrNw&hl=en&fs=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/JlFc4wCpvSo&hl=en&fs=1
Update 27 Nov 2008: Kenyan Ambassador says he does not know if Obama was born in the U.S. He says U.S. government should investigate where he was born and if necessary request the sealed records in both Kenya and the U.S. I agree with his suggestion. Read the whole article here:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060
All Kenyans Know What Americans Refuse to Recognize:
http://www.youtube.com/v/yl1K94ALlTA&hl=en&fs=1&
———————————————————-
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
6 killed in Pakistan as Muslims burn Christian homes
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/01/pakistan.sectarian.violence/index.html
Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies”
Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad:
“I’ve now been in 57 States”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
57 States: http://www.oic-oci.org/index.asp
“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.”
“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country… I know, because I am one of them.”
Obama surrenders to the Iranian Mullahs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7hc_CI3f1A
“My administration is now committed to diplomacy [appeasement] that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran [Mullahs] , and the international community [57 Islamic States]. This process will not be advanced by threats [except threats to American infidels]. We seek engagement [submission to Islam] that is honest [deceptive] and grounded in mutual respect [deception]…”
Matt says:
August 1, 2009 at 3:31 am
There has been no real evidence provided by anyone. The only thing we have to go on is the fact that Obama is willing to go to hell and back to keep all of his records hidden. Why issue an executive order to seal all of his records? There is no reason to hide when you have nothing to hide.
Matt, can you link us to this so called executive order that sealed all of his personal records? Because if you are refering to the Privacy laws, they were enacted long before he was President.
He was born in Kenya.
Do you have evidence of this? Some proof or something to support this claim?
Even if he wasn’t it doesn’t matter. A natural born citizen is someone born to TWO parents that are U.S. CITIZENS and has NEVER held any citizenship other than U.S. citizenship.
Can you provide us where in the US Constitution that it says that? Or maybe a US Law? Or some sort of SCOTUS ruling that says that in unambigious language? Please provide the citation.
Obama only had ONE parent that was a citizen of the United States.
Obama was a dual citizen at birth so he can never be a natural born citizen, only a citizen.
Agan, can you provide some documented proof?
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child and went to school there. He would have to become a naturalized citizen of Indonesia in order to go to school there.
Can you show us where in Indonesian law that it states that? And can you provide a document that states that he became a citizen of Indonesia? Maybe some Indonesian records?
He could come back to the United States and be a citizen but even if he ever was a natural born citizen, which he never was, he would have lost it because of the years he lived in Indonesia.
Can you provide us where in US law does it state that if you are a citizen born in the US, and you live in another country and possibly become a citizen there as a child, then you lose your US citizenship? Because that would seem to fly in the face of the Perkins v. Elg SCOTUS case.
By the way. Phil, I wish you would censor the Obots on this site.
Why? Because the so called “O-bots” don’t agree with you? Or that they just ask for you to provide some evidence to back up your claims? Just curious. Are there any so called pro President Obama sites that ban so called “birthers”?
Just curious if you can source and support the claims that you have made.
ink: Hillary Clinton. Is there any chance on God’s green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out?<<
————
McCarthy should get his facts straight.
Phil Berg a Clinton minion did challange Obama's birth eligibility through a lawsuit and the lawsuit commenced before Obama was nominated by the DNC to run for President.
So clearly McCarthy errs signifantly in his lack of knowledge about this subject.
As far as Obama being born in Kenya and who his real father is, this is what the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest based upon a historical timeline of Frank Marshall Davis, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr.
It is my contention that the circumstantial evidence is very strong that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's real father and that Obama could very well have been born in Kenya
The main points of the argument are.
1. Davis knew Stanley Ann Dunham's parents while growing up in Kansas.
2. Davis lived in Chicago for about 25 years and married a white socialite from Chicago. They moved to Hawaii in 1948 and had five children before divorcing in 1970 Davis remained in Hawaii until his death in 1987
3. Barack Obama Sr was only married to Stanley Ann Dunham for 6 months when Barack Obama Jr. was born. He did not know her for more than 2 or 3 month before Obama Jr. was conceived.
4. Both Barack Obama Sr and Stsnley Ann Dunham were students at Hawaii U. when they were married. During that summer when she was pregmant they both went to Kenya for her to meet his parents and have the baby.
5. Almost immediately upon returning to Hawaii from Kenya Stanley Ann Dunham permanently separated from Barack Obama Sr and she returned to Seattle WA. She remained there with Barack Obama Jr until 1963 on year after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii and entered Harvard U. in 1962
6. They divorced in 1964. So the total time that were together was less than one year and maybe as little as 6-7 months. Here is where it gets interesting.
7. After Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Hawaii in 1963 when Frank Marshall Davis was there. She stayed there until about 1967 when she moved to Indonesia.
8. In 1970 Frank Marshall Davis divocred his wife Helen Canfield. She left Hawaii and he stayed.
9. In 1971-2 Stanley Ann Dunham after divorcing her 2nd husband Barry Soetero in Indonesia returned with young Barack to Hawaii.
9. Upon their return they developed an open close relationship with the newly divorced Frank Marshall Davis.
10. Frank Marshall Davis continued to mentor Barack Obama Jr.in Hawaii until 1979 two years after Stanley Ann Dunham returned to Indonesia. In 1979 Barack Obama Jr. moved to Los Angeles and entered Occidental college.
11. In 1985 Barack Obama Jr. graduated from Harvard and took a job in N.Y as an attorney with a large corporation. He stayed there in 1988 when he suddenly got this job as a community organizer in Chicago working within the Annenberg group. The Annenbergs liks the Canfields were Chicago socialites.
So did Helen Canfield and her five children from Frank Marshall Davis return to Chicago in 1970 when she divorced him? Most likely.
How does Obama wind up getting that community organizers job in Chicago without Chicago connections? Maybe he got those connections while at Harvard or Columbia or maybe he got them through the Canfields or one of his half brothers or sisters from the Davis – Canfield marriage who were now lving in Chicago.
Bottom line is that there is a long history of familty connections and close ties between Frank Marshall Davis, Stanley Ann Dunham and her son Barack including the fact that Barack Obama Jr. like Frank Marshall Davis is also a communist and black liberationist. stanley Ann Dunham like Frank Marshall Davis was also a communist.
As far as Obama being born in Kenya and who is real father are this is what the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest based upon a historical timeline of Frank Marshall Davis, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr.
Wheras the connections between Barack Obama Sr, Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Jr were of a very very limited time span.
Of course this is all circumstantial but it does seem a bit strange that Stanley Ann Dunham would marry Barak Obama Sr after she was 3 months pregnant and then seperate from him for good almost immediately after giving birth. It does happen but why was Barack Obama Sr. never involved in Barack Obama Jr. life even after the separation yet Frank Marshall Davis whose facial features are very close to Barack Obama Jr was very intimately involved in Barack Obama Jr' life for many years while young Barack was growing up.
Teo Bear:
Because you can’t get enough?
You guys have been saying that for over a year now. Don’t you think it’s a tad… stale?
ch says:
August 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Evidence Obama Born in Hawaii
1. Not a state issued/certified COLB. Hawaii says they did not issue COLB in 2007.
Can you provide proof of this statement? It would seem to be incorrect because Dr. Fukino stated that the COLB is accurate and that vital records she viewed state that the President was born in HI. So you are either saying she is lying or you can provide some documentation that support that they did not issue the COLB then.
Three different COLBs on web sites, one with out certification.
Again, can you provide that sites that show 3 different COLB’s? The one that WND and Factcheck saw indicated that it has all of the correct information, including the signature and raised seal.
“African” not legally allowed as race category in 1961.
So you know that it was not legally allowed? Meaning that you contacted the State of HI and asked if an individual filling out the information for a birth, could not identify himself as an African? What terms did they have to use? Because no person from Africa would ever identify themselves as Negro, Black, or Colored.
One (two???) contemporary birth announcement
The state of HI department of health provided the birth information to the newspapers. So you can show us where the newspapers allowed someone from the family to provide this information, corect?
“and the couple who lived at address during the same time period state there was no black/white couple at that address in 1961.
Again since you made this statement you have the evidence that there was a couple that stated this. Can you provide the article or statement?
Testimony of his sister. Testimony? Under oath? She gave different hospitals.
Can you provide the article where she supposdly gives the name of a different hospital in a quote directly attributed to her?
The point is that you made many statements without providing any kind of citation or article that the claims come from. Which is OK, but you just accused the President of not being able to provide any supporting documentation and you have not provided any either. So if we are to believe you we should also believe the President.
MoniQue says:
July 31, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Historian dude,
The certificate that Obama produced has already been proven to be a fraudulent photoshop forgery.
__________________________________________________________________
Monique, who determined that President Obama’s COLB was a forgery? Was it Polarik, who has finally been identified and has been proved to not have the qualifications that he claims to have?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17882344/ZLiberiltrtoJudgeRobrenoreInjunction073009-73009
And Polarik or Ronald Jay Polland…
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html
Was it TechDude? He was already discredited. Sandra Lines stated that she could not make a determination without seeing the actual paper COLB, so again who determined that it was fraudulent?
World Net Daily has already claimed that it was authentic…
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
So again what individual, with the qualifications to say so, has stated on the record that President Obama’s COLB is a fraud? No one has. So as much as the you and the other birthers make this statement, it is not a true statement. It may be your belief, and you are entitled to believe that. But in the US we fortunately rely on proof. And none has been submitted.
Constitutional Lawyer says:
August 1, 2009 at 3:15 pm
No credible Evidence exists that proves BO is a US Citizen.
There is Conclusive Evidence that BO is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, i.e., by his own admission BO’s father was a British/Kenyan Citizen at his birth, and his mother was 18 at his birth.
________________________________________________________________
OK. So you can provide us with documentation that shows that he is not a natural born citizen, correct? Because you said that there is conclusive evidence. Regarding the President’s father, since you are a lawyer you can show us where in the Constitution it states that a natural born citizen has 2 parents that are citizens. Or where it states that there are more than 2 types of citizens, because since the President was born in the US he can’t be a naturalized citizen, so he must be a natural, or born of the soil. And show us where it states that his mother being 18 was too young to confer citizenship on President Obama. Since there is so much conclusive evidence, you would be able to point it out to us.
Phil, are you a creationist?
Do you think Jacklyn Smith’s posts about the President’s privates add to the civility of the debate? To you they are not ugly, mean, hateful, asking the same questions over and over again, lying by omission or commission?
I conclude that BO is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because by his own admissions he has proven he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, it is as simple as that.
However, proving the negative is always problematic. Hence, proving that BO is not a US Citizen is not so easy. There is absolutely no credible proof that BO is a US Citizen, but, on the otherhand, there is not conclusive proof that he is not a US Citizen primarily due to the fact that BO is withholding all evidence of his citizenship.
BO’s recalcitrance begs the Question, why is he hiding everything about his citizenship if he has nothing to hide?