Certifigate: Obama Birth Cert Not Released; Why This Changes the Game
On the heels of a purported Kenyan Birth Registration said by Kenyan officials as likely not being authentic, and with Dr. Orly Taitz’ motion for a Letter Rogatory having been stricken by Judge Nakazato on account of being improperly filed (with all due respect, how hard is it to properly file paperwork?), Newsmax.com is reporting the following:
Contrary to widespread media reports, Hawaiian health officials have not publicly released President Obama’s original, “long-form” birth certificate, state officials confirm to Newsmax.
Many media reports have insisted the president’s actual birth certificate is available on the Internet for anyone to download. It is not.
Barack Obama’s “certification of live birth,” was issued by the state of Hawaii and was posted first on the Obama presidential campaign Web site.
Such a certification sometimes is called the “short form” — some agencies accept it as an equivalent of a birth certificate, some do not.
The document is essentially a summary of the actual long form birth certificate. The certification does not list the attending physician, the address or hospital where the delivery took place, or the parents’ occupation. Typically, this information is included on the birth certificate.
Newsmax asked Janice S. Okubo, communications director for Hawaii’s State Health Department, whether the department had released any of the president’s vital records to anyone other than the president or a direct relative. Doing so would constitute a violation of HRS 338, Section 18, the Hawaii law intended to protect personal information and prevent identity theft.
Okubo’s response: “The Hawaii State Department of Health complies with state laws” — meaning no public release of the document has occurred.
Throughout the so-called “birther” controversy — birthers suspect Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president — anchors and reporters have assumed wrongly that Obama’s “certification of live birth” contains the same information as an original, long-form birth certificate:
- MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews interviewed Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., on July 21, lambasting him for co-sponsoring a House bill that would require presidential candidates to submit documents to establish their constitutional eligibility to serve as president.”What you’re doing is appeasing the nut cases,” Matthews said. “As you just pointed out, this [bill] won’t prove or disprove whether Barack Obama is a citizen. By the way, let me show you his birth certificate” — Matthews held up a document — “That’s the way to deal with this: Mail a copy of this certificate to the wacko wing of your party, so they see it and say, ‘I agree with this. It’s over.’”Matthews held up Obama’s certification of live birth — not his birth certificate.
- Talk host Rachel Maddow stated on June 11: “This baseless, mouth-breathing, whack-job theory became such an issue during the presidential campaign that Mister Obama did actually release a certificate of his birth from Hawaii, showing that he was born in Honolulu in 1961. And yet, the ‘birther’ movement persists.”What the Obama campaign released was the certification-of-live-birth summary.
- In response to a question from correspondent Les Kinsolving on why the president doesn’t simply release his long-form birth certificate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied incredulously: “You’re looking for the president’s birth certificate? It’s on the Internet.”
- CNN anchor Rick Sanchez recently held up a document for cameras to zoom in on. “This is a reprint of his birth certificate . . . or as it says here, certificate of birth.” The document presented by Sanchez was clearly marked “certification of live birth.”
The certification of live birth qualifies an individual to receive a passport, a driver’s license, or otherwise establish residency for official purposes, Hawaii says.
When the birth-certificate issue emerged just before the November election, Hawaii Health Department Director Chiyome Fukino released a statement saying that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Dr. Fukino added in an apparent effort to head off conspiracy theorists: “No state official . . . has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
When the blogosphere tempest flared up again recently, Fukino issued another, slightly different statement, saying she has “seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Several courts have sided with the Hawaii Health Department’s position that birth records must be protected as private. In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment to hear a case that challenged Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.
Hawaii health officials have stated in the past that they maintain Obama’s original birth certificate and have it in their possession. The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin carried the announcement of Obama’s birth about nine days after it occurred, although that has not convinced the birthers.
Why the ongoing interest in the long-form, original birth certificate, even among conservatives who don’t dispute that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii?
Obama’s critics complain the birth certificate echoes a pattern of promising transparency on the one hand while refusing to release key documents on the other, including detailed personal health records, Obama’s correspondence while an Illinois senator, his attorney client list or billing records, or his college transcripts.
They also point out that Obama is the only modern president whose precise place of birth remains undetermined. Honolulu’s Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital has been widely cited as his birthplace, but another Honolulu location has been mentioned as well.
The hospital has declined to address whether Obama was born there. Presidential birthplaces typically receive recognition and commemoration.
Pamela Geller of her AtlasShrugs.com blog expressed her sentiments via her new home at Newsmax.com regarding the story of the fraudulent certification of live birth that she first broke.
In light of the above, I have recently sent FactCheck.org correspondence regarding the certification of live birth that they presumably still possess (as I promised) to see if there have been, in fact, independent reporters, forensic document examiners and the like who have physically analyzed the document as well as any contact info for those individuals that is available. I expect to report on that development soon.
With the above, we now move into the reality that Mr. Obama has released absolutely zero original evidence that substantiates his eligibility regarding the office of the presidency. As the above article by Newsmax points out, while the alleged HI COLB contains information that is perfectly suitable for State Department purposes of getting a passport or driver’s license, it does not show enough information to absolutely confirm or deny presidential eligibility. In fact, the State Department has no law by which to determine presidential eligibility, nor does it have the authority to make such a determination.
The game has now changed.
Update: How has the game changed? Allow me to explain.
There are two things we know for sure regarding Mr. Obama’s birth documentation:
- The long-form birth certificate has not been released;
- The short-form “certification of live birth” provides, in theory, some of the information (but not all) that would otherwise be found on a potential long-form birth certificate
Now, what do I mean by, “in theory?” Simply put: as with the case of China-born Sun Yat-sen, since all that the HI Department of Health has ever said is that the documentation they have on file says Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, it’s still very possible that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii.
However, before getting lost in the geographical location argument, think about this: Since there currently is no law that legally enforces the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution, and since there is subsequently no law that dictates the degree to which any available information is “enough” to substantiate eligibility, we are practically left nowhere.
Nowhere? How is that? The opposition to questioning eligibility insists that the certification of live birth (not a birth certificate) has “enough” info to determine eligibility, in that Dr. Fukino claimed that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen, so why question a public official? Meanwhile, individuals such as myself say that the COLB is not complete enough to make such a determination and that Dr. Fukino has only ever claimed to be making such determinations based on the documentation that the State has on file (which could be very similar to what Mr. Yat-sen submitted to the Territory so many years ago).
Therefore, the argument has systematically turned into a “they-said, they-said”-type of argument; since there is no definitive guiding law for determining eligibility, it is therefore at this time solely up to the court of public opinion to continue churning the argument with, apparently, no end in sight, save a legitimate revelation of documentation.
Update: A concerned citizen relayed an article from the Examiner.com entitled, “Attempt to debunk Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate debunked.”
Newsmax.com has an interesting article talking about the birthplaces of, so far, 43 presidential birth places, but none yet commemorating Mr. Obama:
1. George Washington — Address: George Washington Birthplace National Monument; Rural Route 1; Box 717; Washington’s Birthplace, Va. 22443
2. John Adams — Address: 133 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02669
3.Thomas Jefferson — Address: U.S. 250; 3 miles east of Charlottesville, Va.
4. James Madison — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
5.James Monroe — Address: Monroe Hall; Virginia SR 205; Westmoreland County near Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
6.John Quincy Adams — Address: 141 Franklin St.; Quincy, Mass. 02169
7.Andrew Jackson — Address: 14 miles south of Rock Hill on South Carolina State Route 5. The Park is on Route 1. Address:196 Andrew Jackson Park Road; Lancaster, S.C. 29720
8.Martin Van Buren — Address: 46 Hudson St.; Kinderhook, New York 12106
9.William Henry Harrison — Address: 12602 Harrison Landing Road; Charles City, Va. 23030
10. John Tyler — Address: John Tyler Memorial Highway; Charles City, Va. 23030
11. James Polk — Address: Box 475; Pineville, N.C. 28134
12. Zachary Taylor — Address: Highway 33; 5 miles west of Gordonsville, Va., and just over 20 miles from Charlottesville, Va.
13. Millard Fillmore — Address: Millard Fillmore Birthplace; Locke, N.Y. 13092
14. Franklin Pierce — Address: The Pierce Homestead; Routes 9 and 31; Hillsboro, N.H. 03244
15. James Buchanan — Address: Buchanan Historic Site; Mercersburg, Pa. 17236
16. Abraham Lincoln — Address: Sinking Spring Farm; 2995 Lincoln Farm Road; Hodgenville, Ky. 42748
17. Andrew Johnson — Address: Mordecai Historic Park; Wake Forest Road; Raleigh, N.C. 27601
18. Ulysses Grant — Address: Grant’s Birthplace; Routes 52E and 322; Point Pleasant, Ohio 45143
19. Rutherford Hayes — Address: Rutherford B. Hayes Birthplace; East William Street; Delaware, Ohio 43015
20. James Garfield — Address: James A. Garfield Birthplace; 4350 S.O.M Center Road; Moreland Hills (now Chagrin Falls); Cuyahoga County, Ohio 44022
21. Chester Arthur — Address: Chester A. Arthur State Historic Site; Route 36; Fairfield, Vt. 05455
22. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006
23. Benjamin Harrison — Address: Benjamin Harrison Birthplace; William Henry Harrison Home; Symmes and Washington Avenues; North Bend, Ohio 45052
24. Grover Cleveland — Address: Grover Cleveland Birthplace State Historic Site; 207 Bloomfield Avenue; Caldwell, N.J. 07006
25. William McKinley — Address: William McKinley Birthplace; 36 S. Main St.; Niles, Ohio 44446
26. Theodore Roosevelt — Address: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site; 28 East 20th St.; New York, N.Y. 10003
27. William Taft — Address: 2038 Auburn Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45219
28. Woodrow Wilson — Address: 18-24 Coalter Street, Staunton, Va. 24401
29. Warren Harding — Address: Highways 97 and 288, Blooming Grove, Ohio 44878
30. Calvin Coolidge — Address: P.O. Box 247, Plymouth, Vermont 05056
31. Herbert Hoover — Address: West Branch, Iowa 52538
32. Franklin Roosevelt — Address: 519 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, N.Y. 12538
33. Harry Truman — Address: 1009 Truman Ave., Lamar, Mo. 64759
34. Dwight Eisenhower — Address: 208 East Day St., Denison, Texas 75020
35. John Kennedy — Address: 83 Beals St., Brookline, Mass. 02146
36. Lyndon Johnson — Address: Box 329 Johnson City, Texas 78636
37. Richard Nixon — Address: 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Calif. 92686
38. Gerald Ford — Address: 3202 Woolworth Ave, Omaha, Neb. 68103
39. James Carter — Address: 300 North Bond St., Plains, Ga. 31780
40. Ronald Reagan — Address: 119 S. Main St., Tampico, Ill. 61283
41. George H.W. Bush — Address: 173 Adams St, Milton, Mass. 02187
42. Bill Clinton — Address: Bill Clinton was born at the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Ark. The hospital has been demolished.
43. George W. Bush — Address: George W. was born to Barbara and George Bush in what was then Grace-New Haven Community Hospital and is now Yale-New Haven Hospital.
44. Barack Obama — Address: Unknown.
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
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
209 responses to Certifigate: Obama Birth Cert Not Released; Why This Changes the Game
A quote from the Newsmax article above is either intentionally incomplete or it is being a bit disingenous….
“Such a certification sometimes is called the “short form” — some agencies accept it as an equivalent of a birth certificate, some do not.”
The article does not tell us what agencies do not accept the so called short form or why this form may not be accepted. The implication is that the HI COLB is somehow insuffcient or incomplete, even when the state of HI has stated that it is the official form that they release. According to the US State Department, that accept the short form for a US Passport. The state of Hawaii has stated that it is acceptable for all government business. So we are left wondering what is the problem with the COLB.
Black Lion,
No, they go on to extrapolate what they mean:
Regarding your statement:
That’s because it is “insufficient or incomplete” with respect to determining presidential eligibility, based on finding out exactly in which hospital he was born, who was the attending physician (if any), etc.
This has already been profusely covered on this site.
-Phil
Phil says:
August 6, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Phil, they stated that some agencies do not accept the COLB. But they don’t tell us what these agencies are or why they don’t accept it. That is what I was alluding to. There is no state agency in HI or federal agency that does not accept the COLB as an official BC for business. Regarding presidential eligibility I can’t disagree with your statement. That will need to be decided by possibly the courts.
I don’t want to be nit-picky here, but I think NewsMax might have extrapolated something from Ms. Okubo’s statement that wasn’t there.
The article states:
‘NewsMax asked Janice S. Okubo, communications director for Hawaii’s State Health Department, whether the department had released any of the president’s vital records to anyone other than the president or a direct relative. Doing so would constitute a violation of HRS 338, Section 18, the Hawaii law intended to protect personal information and prevent identity theft.
Okubo’s response: “The Hawaii State Department of Health complies with state laws” — meaning no public release of the document has occurred.’
NewsMax isn’t critical enough here. They asked a specific question; they received a very, very broad answer – about as general as you can be.
NewsMax’s conclusion that no public release of the document has occured is potentially a fallacy. What if then-Senator Obama requested his vital records, and then publically released them on a (very) limited basis? Of course, as Phil has pointed out many times, if such a transaction occured, there should be a paper trail somewhere.
That has nothing to do with Presidential Eligibility, and you know it. You know that the short form is good enough to prove your place of birth to the Federal Government. Who cares what hospital, Phil? Does it change the city, county, state, or country that you were born in?
The fact is that the so-called short form is good enough to prove that you were born in Honolulu, Hawaii, as it does in Barack Obama’s case. Please show me the statute that hinges Presidential Eligibility on which doctor delivered you, or which hospital you were born in.
There is no difference in proving your birth place to the Federal Government, and proving your birth place to the Federal Government. You just don’t seem to understand that.
And if the short form doesn’t prove your birth place to the Federal Government, then why does the State Department allow it as primary evidence of citizenship?
Phil –
“That’s because it is “insufficient or incomplete” with respect to determining presidential eligibility, based on finding out exactly in which hospital he was born, who was the attending physician (if any), etc.”
There’s no connection between birth hospital or attending physician and presidential eligibility. Can you please explain how the lack of that information makes the document ““insufficient or incomplete” with respect to determining presidential eligibility”?
Why doesn’t someone ask the Hawaiian authorities, since they say they always abide by the law, if they would refuse to turn over the long form birth certificate with all info included to a court if so ordered by the court to do so? That way they would go on record acknowledging that there is such greater info available for review … if so ordered.
Phil,
“with all due respect, how hard is it to properly file paperwork?”
Being that Orly almost always files improperly, it appears almost impossible for her to file correctly.
Pam Geller’s article is interested but someone needs to mention that many legal scholars conclude that the BC is irrelevant in that BO is not a Natural Born Citizen. This is a disqualifier that can not be cured by photo-shop or even an honest to goodness Hawaiian BC.
Furthermore, Obama’s crimes make Nixon look like a Saint, so I suspect that BO will be run out of office eventually regardless of his birth status.
Phil,
This Newsmax story shows that TheRightSiteofLife.com is months ahead of the Main Stream Internet News Sites…
Your leading the pack! More power to yuh!
Black Lion;
The issue with the COLB was in Hawaii with a statement from any relative, you could have been issued an Hawaiian Birth Certificate.
No hospital, doctor, nurse, or witness in Hawaii has come forward to verify, confirm, or state they were there when Obama was born. We do however have Obama’s grandmother state she WAS there when he was born in Kenya.
We also have Obama’s admission that he was a British subject at birth. His father was a foreign national.
He already has 1 strike at being a “Natural Born” citizen, being born outside of the US seals his fate. Obama himself not only admitted that he was a NATIVE citizen, but the British Nationality Law of 1948 governed him when he was born.
How does British Law govern a US Citizen – IT CAN’T!
Obama might be able to pawn off that since he was born in Hawaii he’s eligible, to the gullible population. But ohers know that to be eligible for the Presidency, you have to be a “Natural Born” citizen. Born in the US of Parents who are citizens. Even the NON-Binding Resolution SR511, had John McCain born of two (2) US Citizens ‘BUT’ outside the US, eligible. How much more does Obama need with a foreign father and questionable birth.
That is the Facts.
When Obama is dragged out in chains and cuff’s – the party is ON!
The article says that nowhere.
You just made that up.
I’ve scoured the Constitution and for the life of me, I can’t find hide nor hair of anything saying that what hospital you’re born at determines your Presidential eligibility. Ditto delivering physician.
Phil….Black Lion just doesn’t get it…..you are very patient to keep telling him and other OBOTS over and over that the COLB is not sufficient for determining eligibility….I thought I had a lot of patience…you take the cake…..Cheers!!!
Phil,
I’ve missed something. How has the game changed?
Do you know of anyone who has spoken to the HI Health Dept to inquire about how the COLB might differ based on special circumstances of birth? If Obama had been born in Kenya and then got a legitimate HI birth cert somehow, would that COLB look different than the one we have seen online?
JC
Phil wrote:
Presidential eligibility depends upon being born in a hospital? That’s not in the Constitution.
Some states issue multiple forms of birth records with the shorter version lacking a seal. Those lacking the seal are the one’s that some agencies do not accept.
State records with a seal and attestation of the record keeper are accepted everywhere in the U.S., because those are the features Congress prescribed to prove state records in 28 U.S.C. 1739, and the Constitution says:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” — Article IV, Section 1
The above article (in NewsMax?) surprisingly says:
“Barack Obama’s “certification of live birth,” was issued by the state of Hawaii and was posted first on the Obama presidential campaign Web site.”
Really? News to me. Where does it say that the COLB was actually officially issued by SOH? As far as I’ve been able to determine, it just suddenly showed up last year out of thin air. It’s authenticity has not been established, ever, has it?
Did I miss something here?
What sayeth thou, O Phil?
Desperate = Birthers
“With the above, we now move into the reality that Mr. Obama has released absolutely zero original evidence that substantiates his eligibility regarding the office of the presidency. As the above article by Newsmax points out, while the alleged HI COLB contains information that is perfectly suitable for State Department purposes of getting a passport or driver’s license, it does not show enough information to absolutely confirm or deny presidential eligibility. In fact, the State Department has no law by which to determine presidential eligibility, nor does it have the authority to make such a determination.
The game has now changed.”
No, it hasn’t. The certified COLB is proof of the fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii. And, that certified COLB was published at FactCheck.org. Hawaii has twice now confirmed that President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii which is the only information that is needed in this issue. Confirmation that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
No game has changed except you try to spread BS.
The bigger picture here, why is BO so special that he doesn’t have to provide the documentation every other Presidential candidate has done over the years? Whether he was or was not born in the US, he should not be allowed to go against the Constitution. Is this not Reverse Racism?
As guilty as he is, so is the media and all elected officials for allowing this issue to continue.
This is truly desperate. No one ever said that the Hawaii state government released Obama’s birth certificate. Obama obtained the document from the state of Hawaii and released it himself.
Come on, guys. When it takes literally four seconds to demolish your arguments, it’s time to pack up and go home.
As I see it, and this has been troubling me, the TWO big variables in this conflict are paternity and place of birth. There is ONE seemingly constant and that is rhw DATE of birth. There is absolutely no proof that Obama/Soetoro was born on August 4, 1961. All we have is claims… no proof. The COLB and newspaper birth announcements fall into the same category… claims. Common sense and accepted genealogigal procedure would demand that these be tossed out of the formula. I believe that WND is on to something with their teaser article on Stanley Ann’s enrolling in school only fifteen days after the kid’s claimed birth date. Should the birth date be found to be, say…around the middle of July, this would open a new frontier on the search for the truth.
Carl’s web site, rise up for american it says:
“Folks, You’re turn to bat…
Call, E-Mail, Fax and write letters to your Congressmen/women and Senators demanding action on the documents (Treason charge) we delivered Tues. and Wed. Remind them they have ten days to act or they become complicit!”
We have to do whatever we can to get that evil usurper arrested for his high crimes of treason and fraud. We have to put the pressure on these guys and don’t take no for an answer. We must hold them accountable.
http://www.tsrn.us/blog/2009/08/06/claim-of-obama%E2%80%99s-kenya-birth-record-thrown-out/
dunstvangeet,
While I think you’ve been around my site long enough to know better, I’ll repeat:
There is currently no law that enforces the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution. Furthermore, there is therefore also no law that stipulates to what degree that one should enforce the clause, meaning that we legally don’t know what constitutes “sufficient” data to make a presidential candidate eligible for the presidency.
Nevertheless, back to your original question, while it is very true that a certification of live birth (or whatever any given State decides to call its short-form piece of paper) can be good enough to substantiate certain types of validity (as the post points out), it is not good enough to justify presidential eligibility, if for no other reason than the fact that a long form shows more info that can be further corroborated than the short form.
Yet, even with all that, Mr. Obama was a British subject at birth, regardless of his physical birthing location.
-Phil
1-Contrary to widespread media reports, Hawaiian health officials have not publicly released President Obama’s original, “long-form” birth certificate, state officials confirm to Newsmax.
2-Barack Obama’s “certification of live birth,” was issued by the state of Hawaii and was posted first on the Obama presidential campaign Web site.
Newsmax had state officials confirm the Long-form but later Newsmax just says Obama’s COLB was issued by the state. Did Newsmax confirm that or assume that? I had also read that Hawaii had not confirmed Obama’s COLB and also has not issues a COLB in 2007 & 2008.
So what are the facts?
MaineSkeptic,
I think we’ve been over this many times before on this site.
Nobody can conclusively show that there’s any kind of connection regarding eligibility because there is no law that presently enforces presidential eligibility. Yet, in light of this fact, there are some of us who would like to see more specific evidence that would necessarily be found on Mr. Obama’s original vital documentation.
-Phil
Civis Naturaliter Natus,
I think there was a plaque or sign on President Reagan’s desk that read something to the effect that we can do anything we set our minds to doing as long as it doesn’t matter who takes the credit.
Thanks for the kind words. It’s all a group effort to seek the truth.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
[clearing throat]
“Na, na, na, na, boo-boo.”
-Phil
Greg,
Welcome to my site.
Your point is well-taken, and something that I’ve been saying for many, many months. There is no law that presently legally enforces presidential eligibility, nor the degree to which such eligibility is to be substantiated.
Nevertheless, per the 9th and 10th Amendments, if there is otherwise no enumeration of power/authority for the feds on a given issue, that issue must necessarily be handled at the State and/or People level, hence all of the questioning.
-Phil
JanC,
The game has changed for the fact that nobody can claim that the HI COLB is, in fact, a birth certificate, especially inasmuch as the cable news media would like to make it out to be.
-Phil
maniaco,
I am currently awaiting a response to my correspondence that I sent to FactCheck.org asking about any independent analyses that may have been done to substantiate the piece of paper allegedly claimed to be Mr. Obama’s HI COLB.
-Phil
sue,
Unoriginal = Legitimizers
-Phil
sue,
I suppose you missed my Sun Yat-sen post.
-Phil
Mark Smith,
Welcome to my site.
The sentiment has been bandied about here for many months, and only recently has the mainstream media taken notice of the eligibility issue.
I think the so-called “birther” strategy is working.
-Phil
Greg,
I too have scoured the Constitution, and nowhere does it state explicitly that you have the right post messages on an Internet blog.
The Constitution DOES say, that to be eligible to be President, you must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That specifically means that you must be born on American soil of TWO US Citizens as parents.
That is the part of this that is in dispute. Getting the details of the long form certificate is just one of the pieces of information required to make that determination.
Sticking to the facts: since Hawaii has not directly stated that they released this infamous COLB (please correct me if I’m wrong; but do so only if you can cite the specific reference). And since Press Secretary Gibbs has said that they (the Obama campaign/adminstration) released it, does that now make the Obama campaign/administration an issuing authority? No wonder they think we “birthers” are nuts. If they’ve somehow become an issuing authority for the State of Hawaii, we all missed that press release.
Good work TRSOL & Phil & Newsmax!
We can continue this repartee for as long as those who wish to post these rebuttals. But it is all for not. Because the 2010 elections will be the end of it for the Democrats. (That is why there is such fire in their pants to ram this stuff thru) Everyone I know, especially those who voted for Obama are worn out with all of this BS. The deficits, this healthcare debacle , the obvious lack of disclosure and transparency, and the absolute lies that are being told to (and now about) the American people. They are smart enough to see when they are being hoodwinked.
As for those opposition posters on this site, I’m sure they are too blinded to see any of it. So I say to you, continue believing that these protests are “manufactured”. Arrogant people are just too fun!
An analysis of the last election shows that there was not a huge influx of new voters as it had been reported over and over. Many just stayed home. I can assure you that they will not stay home next time. In fact, there may well be that influx this coming election. Because many of the things happening right now are things that most people can see as effecting their own quality of life, they may very well get up off the couch and go do something about it.
I see there are a lot of new visitors/commenters to this site. For all the people that believe Obama to be transparent I would like to know why he refuses to release any college records? Many liberals loved to point out that George Bush was stupid and made fun of his Yale transcripts, as they were available. Why for Obama, are just degrees sufficient?
Then that would mean that the initial claim in the Newsmax article saying that the short form BC “was released” by Hawaii is inaccurate. That’s why I stopped reading Newsmax a long time ago. They get some of the facts right, but not everything. If Janice Okubo says they “comply with all state laws,” then even the “short form” that Obama posted on his website did not come from the Health Department. That would prove that someone created it!
Steve Doocy of Fox & Friends finally mentioned “the Birthers” this morning in the context of the health care town hall meetings taking place around the country. He was not derogatory, but rather was explaining that as a group, they have been accused of showing up at the forums and disrupting them. However, ACORN, Code Pink and the Liberation Earth Front have all done much worse.
When I called to ask about a town hall meeting with my congressman yesterday, I was directed to the Democrat Town Committee’s chairman and got his wife on the phone. She accused me of being “from the tea party” when all I ask doing was asking if my congressman was conducting a health care town hall meeting that night. My goodness, are people oversensitive these days!
I’ve sent a letter to my congressman, my local paper, and town’s First Selectman about the rudeness with which I was treated. I was not representing tea parties or “birthers.” It seems the libs are a little on edge lately and accusing people of ridiculous things.
syc1959 says:
August 6, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Black Lion;
The issue with the COLB was in Hawaii with a statement from any relative, you could have been issued an Hawaiian Birth Certificate.
No hospital, doctor, nurse, or witness in Hawaii has come forward to verify, confirm, or state they were there when Obama was born.
The law doesn’t require that. Which is why we have Birth Certificates or state issued equivalents. So that you don’t need a witness or anything sort of proof. It is the proof. Secondly the state of HI does not allow you to get a COLB with just a statement from a relatve. It allows foreign births to be registered, but they could not say Honolulu or anywhere else in HI. In addition that law came into being in 1982. This has all been examined in detail. Unless you can provide a law or some source for that statement, then you are just repeating a birther made up story. Just like in HI, in the state of New York if you request your BC all you get is a COLB. I know this from personal experience. And it does not have a hospital or doctor’s name on it. It states just your parents name and the city you were born in. Why? Because that is all you need for establishing citizenship. Hospital names and doctors names are irrelevant. Unless you can show where in the Constitution or US law where a person needs a doctor or hospital to make a COLB or BC legitimate, then it doesn’t matter.
We do however have Obama’s grandmother state she WAS there when he was born in Kenya.
No we don’t. President Obama’s step-grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. A birther lie made up by Ron McRae. She says more than once he was born in America, in HI.
We also have Obama’s admission that he was a British subject at birth. His father was a foreign national.
Can you show us where in the Constitution that it states that if your father was a national of another country, then you are inelligible to be President?
He already has 1 strike at being a “Natural Born” citizen, being born outside of the US seals his fate. Obama himself not only admitted that he was a NATIVE citizen, but the British Nationality Law of 1948 governed him when he was born.
Is there proof that he was born outside the United States? No. No legitimate BC has been discovered, unless you think that forgery that Orly released is real. And the State of HI has already stated that President Obama was born in HI as per his COLB. So he doesn’t have any so called strikes against him.
How does British Law govern a US Citizen – IT CAN’T
This is the only thing you got right. Foreign laws like the British Nationality Act have no bearing on US immigration or citizenship laws.
speedy says:
August 7, 2009 at 7:40 am
Carl’s web site, rise up for american it says:
“Folks, You’re turn to bat…
Call, E-Mail, Fax and write letters to your Congressmen/women and Senators demanding action on the documents (Treason charge) we delivered Tues. and Wed. Remind them they have ten days to act or they become complicit!”
________________________________________________________________
I wonder what Carl is going to do when no one in Congress does anything with his so called documents? Call in a fantasy army to arrest people? Issue more so called indictments and presentments? Wish very hard that someone will listen to him? I am surprised that he hasn’t figured it out that no one is taking him seriously? I guess we will find out in 10 days when no one acts what he will do next…Maybe issue another 10 day deadline.
WeimMom:
Conceptually, you are on the right track. Factually, however, you have been misinformed. You write:
In actuality, no Presidential candidate has ever provided the documentation asked for by the Birther movement. Barack Obama has, by releasing his birth certificate, provided more proof of his Constitutional eligibility than any other President in American history.
Well, the actual facts of which you were apparently unaware would indicate clearly not. But since you opened that can of worms, good old fashioned “Forward Racism,” does appear to have some influence in this otherwise contrived “controversy.”
syc1959:
To the extent that this is true, it is also true in every other state of the union. But to the extent that it implies there is no effort by the Registrar’s Office to seek corroborating evidence of such a statement, it is false.
To the additional extent that you are implying that Hawaiian birth certificates are somehow less “proof” of citizenship than any other State’s birth certificates, I refer you the “full faith and credit” clause found in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Obama’s grandmother has never made such a statement. You have been misled.
For the sake of accuracy, no such admission from Obama exists. An unattributed statement on one of the websites associated with his campaign quoted another website to that effect… but to assert that the “admission” is Obama’s personally is simply not true.
But that is substantively neither here nor there. The framers did not give us any rules for what a President could not be. They instead gave us three criteria for what a President must be. As long as a candidate is a natural born American citizen, at least 35 years old, and lived in the US for 14 years there are no other characteristics, circumstances or personal details that Constitutionally matter.
There are no apparent “strikes” against his status as an NBC. Native and natural born are exactly synonymous. The British Nationality Law of 1948 governed only his British Citizenship, just as the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Law governed his American Citizenship.
Exactly. It can’t. It can only govern his British Citizenship. It is entirely irrelevant to his natural born American citizenship.
No such requirement can be found in the Constitution or in any US Statute. It does not matter what you “know.” It only matters what is true.
Exactly. But since Obama was born inside the US, McCain’s resolution regards a situation that is nothing like Obama’s.
Nothing… since there is no genuine question regarding his birth.
That is the Facts.
Phil,
I have been trying to think of ways to get to the bottom of this issue. I think looking for a Kenyan BC is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I also think getting the original Hawaiian BC is a dead end at this point.
I think a sensible course of action right now would be to simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is lying about the circumstances surrounding his birth. Dunham’s school records are a good start towards this, but if we could prove where she was during the spring/summer of 1961 it would go a long ways towards discovering the truth, whatever it may be.
A search for the Obama/Dunham marriage license would help a lot in determining Dunham’s location during this time period. We are not likely to find the license, but we should be able to find the marriage announcement. Just like the birth announcements, these are supposedly issued directly from the department of vital statistics (http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20081019_vital_statistics.html). I can’t say for sure this was true in 1961, but it seems very likely and can easily be confirmed. If Dunham and Obama were indeed married in Hawaii, this announcement should be on microfilm somewhere, just like the birth announcement. The absence of such a film would be substantial evidence that the marriage did not occur in Hawaii.
I do not have any means of accessing these records, so I thought the best course of action for myself would be to simply notify you of this idea, and perhaps you would know who to talk to so that a search for the records could be conducted.
Does it really matter where Obama was born?
If he was born abroad to parents, a mother and a father who were both US citizens, he would be a “natural born citizen”.
If he was born on US soil to parents, a mother and a father who were both US citizens, he would be a “natural born citizen”.
However, if he was born on US soil or abroad to a mother who was a US citizen and a father who was a foreign national, the chief justice who gave the opinion in Minor v Happersett stated that there have been doubts [about the "natural born citizen" status of children born to parents where both parents were not, themselves, US citizens].
The Chief Justice in Minor v Happersett 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 their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents [plural, both father and mother must be citizens] within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
…Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ‘that any alien, being a free white person,’ might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.
Source: Minor v Happersett, online: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“I suppose you missed my Sun Yat-sen post”
No. And, your point?
Hawaii DOH officials have verified that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Twice now, for those who didn’t get it the first time.
“The game has changed for the fact that nobody can claim that the HI COLB is, in fact, a birth certificate, especially inasmuch as the cable news media would like to make it out to be.”
Good try Phil, but no cigar.
update from World Net Daily:
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state’s lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama’s birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health
, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106137
So where is the transparency, BHO?
The question really is which nutjob site can be more disingenuous than Newsmax?
I mean, come on. Yes, there has been some confusion of terms, what with the BC and the COLB and all, but this is a News story? That the COLB is not a copy of the BC?
And that somehow means “the game has changed?” Please Phil.
The “birther movement” is now giving us a classic example of Lenin’s “useful idiots” in current politics. The video of that screaming idiot at Representative Castle’s town hall meeting has become the face of opposition to health care reform. People who don’t want health care reform are being tarred with that brush.
It’s a great political move – and the White House is making the most of it.
As for this, yes, if anyone with the constitutional authority to check into the eligibility of the President was asking for proof of his birth, they might well want the BC instead of the COLB. The fact is that they DID NOT ask for it that we know of, and the decision that he is eligible has already been made and left to stand by those who DO have that authority.
This is an academic exercise at best, left over feelings from a lost election at worst…
sue says:
August 7, 2009 at 5:50 am
“With the above, we now move into the reality that Mr. Obama has released absolutely zero original evidence that substantiates his eligibility regarding the office of the presidency. As the above article by Newsmax points out, while the alleged HI COLB contains information that is perfectly suitable for State Department purposes of getting a passport or driver’s license, it does not show enough information to absolutely confirm or deny presidential eligibility. In fact, the State Department has no law by which to determine presidential eligibility, nor does it have the authority to make such a determination.
The game has now changed.”
No, it hasn’t. The certified COLB is proof of the fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii. And, that certified COLB was published at FactCheck.org. Hawaii has twice now confirmed that President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii which is the only information that is needed in this issue. Confirmation that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
No game has changed except you try to spread BS.
***************************************************************************
SUE—-Looks like you are desperate again…..NOTHING YOU SAY again makes the FRAUD a “natural born” citizen!!!
When I applied for Medicare, I was required to provide (1) a certified copy of my birth certificate, (2) my social security card, and my driver’s license. Social Security instructed me that a “Certificate of Live Birth” would not be accepted!!!! In Oklahoma, you must provide an original certified copy of your birth certificate to obtain a driver’s license. Anyone with a speed limit IQ and a pulse knows Obama is a Chicago CROOK.
Orly is going to re-file Kenyan Birth Cert with Arthur Nakazato
by DefendUSx August 06, 2009 17:55
Her orignal filing was “stricken from the court record”, due to the following reasons:
The judge says the motion was improperly filed “for the following reasons:
* Lacks proper notice;
* improper form and format
* Counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No.
* description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court’s e-docket
Re-filing evidence is a very common thing, for the reasons above among others. Orly should get a team of Lawyers together in order to go over the procedures for filing with this court. Bill Berg, too, has had to refile motions etc. time after time, as does Mario Apuzzo. It’s become quite commonplace in the eligibility trials.
However, Obama should be required to show proof of citizenship by presenting an authentic vault copy of the birth certificate, because his Father was not a US citizen, as required by the Constitution for both parents of a natural-born citizen. For this reason alone, it is a “no-brainer” in that Obama needs to “man-up” and show some proof to the court and the American people on the whole.
This argument has been presented many times and in many forms.
What does the COLB actually prove?
The COLB, if genuine, proves that the birth of a person named Barack Hussein Obama II was registered in Hawaii and nothing more. With the looseness of the Hawaiian Laws addressing birth registration in 1961, it does not prove that such a person was born in Hawaii. The Hawaiian DOH statements are very carefully worded and the last was even approved by the state legal department before it was issued! Why be sooo careful?
A scenerio with Mr. Obama born in the Pacific northwest, in Washington or possibly British Columbia, would fit the verifiable facts rather well.
Combine unusual circumstances of birth with the noted adoption by an Indonesian on whatever BC Hawaii has for BHO in the vault and the BC would be truly difficult to explain to the public. Good challenge for a great orator and brilliant Constitutional scholar wouldn’t you say? But then there is the neat little story in Dreams. What could you do about that?
Leo Donofrio just posted a new article:
Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/obama-was-a-natural-born-subject-the-founders-greatest-fear-as-to-commander-in-chief/
WeimMom says:
The truth is essentially opposite to what the eligibility deniers pretend. Barack Obama is the only U.S. President that publicly exhibited his birth certificate. Previous Presidents showed no official birth record at all, but when Obama shows a perfectly good, perfectly legal, and perfectly ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate, somehow in his case that’s not enough.
Not reverse, no.
OBama – How he got his birth announcement in the paper
The game hasn’t changed. Obama is or is not a natural born citizen. He must be born in the US of two US citizens. If he could establish that, he would clearly be a natural born citizen. Anything short of that will leave his status as a NBC as uncertain at best.
Nothing on the birth certificate will validate the citizenship of his father. There’s certainly a public interest in obtaining the official long form birth certificate. Nothing on it though will overcome the fact that Obama has admitted his father wasn’t a US citizen. After that admission, the game of hide and seek with the birth certificate is nothing but a media distraction. It’s working well as intended.
For any Obama supporter-please read Senate Resolution 511-can you guys admit that the last two lines, in particular the words “born to American citizens” carry some meaning-right?-would our Senators create this criteria from thin air??. Next, look at Mr. Obamas own admissions-ie being a “dual citizen”, being born to a Kenyan citizen father-doesnt this raise any questions for you?? Isnt there any room in there for a little, eensy, weensy doubt??
I have to tell you-it was seeing this document that got me started-(Oct 24, 2008)I had a difficult time believing that such a mess could have actually happened and watching it ever since has been a source of amazing entertainment-shock and surprise. Believe me when I tell you that I expected at least a legitimate inquiry to be conducted and for Mr. Obama, whose campaign pledge was for “transparency” to quickly and thoroughly dispatch any doubt through a full disclosure of all documentation, but when that didnt happen-whoa! Isnt there any eensy, weensy doubt yet????
Hawaii has NOT validated any of the COLB’s of Barack Obama’s that heve been posted.
Everyone:
This back and forth bickering about the COLB’s and birth certificates is meaningless.
The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
Finally, and LISTEN UP pro-Soetoro people, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning they are talking about a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations.
Good luck refuting this. Have a nice day.
In reading the article above from Newsmax, I find it interesting that they seem to be implying that for some reason the HI COLB is not suffcient to prove that President Obama is a citizen. However in an article that Newsmax wrote before, they said the following…
“The truth is that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii, by law, does not make original birth certificates public, and this has enabled conspiracy theorists to claim that there is something nefarious about the circumstances of Obama’s birth.”
“The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport,” FactCheck.org, headed by respected former Wall Street Journal reporter Brooks Jackson, concluded.”
“According to the State Department, that includes “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.”
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_birth/2008/12/08/159417.html
So it seems to me that in this article the HI COLB is OK to prove citizenship because the COLB meets the standards of the US State Department.
“I suppose you missed my Sun Yat-sen post.”
Ah, right. The post that said that because there was a fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate made for a man over 55 years before Obama’s birth, we cannot trust the provenance of Obama’s birth certificate.
Phil:
Your strategy was to become a punch-line for late night TV?
Who knew?
On the issue of a natural-born citizen, it’s recently been found out that there’s no such thing as a dual citizenship in this country. To gain an idea of what the Framers knew and taught, go to Leo Donofrio’s blogspot and study there, especially “The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President,” which is the second article, and by all means, look at the comments underneath this. In the comments section, look at what a person named Kamira has posted. These are very excellent articles. More will follow soon.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Phil says:
Here in the real world, not only can we claim the COLB is a birth certificate, we can cite a spokesperson from the Hawaii Department of Health saying it’s the official birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
I keep going back to the idea that Obama may have indeed been born in Hawaii but that his real father is Frank Marshall Davis.
If this were the case I think it is pretty clear why Obama would not want to publicly release it. His whole life would then be a big lie.
What he would be woube be a a mixed race child fathered by a man married to another women who wasn’t his mother.
I don’t think he would want that to come out.
On top of that if Frank Marshall Davis was really his father then Obama is linked even more strongly to the radical left, communists and black liberationists among other radical groups.
However, I have not yet been able to come up with a good reason why if Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s father Stanley Ann Dunham would have listed Davis’ name on Barack Jr’ birth certifcate rather than her husband’s name, Barack Obama Sr.
Keep in mind that Dunham and Barack Sr. split up less than one month after young Barack’s birth and they never got back together.
Maybe she would have done it out of her love for Frank Marshall Davis and hope that some day he would divorce Helen Canfield, which he did in 1970, and marry her. He never married Dunham after he divorced Canfield but she did return to Hawaii from Indoneia with young Barack shortly after his divorce. After their return Frank Marshall Davis become a very important figure in both Dunham and Barack Jr’s life until she moved back to Indonesia without Barack Jr. in 1977.
The facial resemblence at similar ages between Davis and Barack Jr. is very strong, whereas there is no facial resemblence between Barack Sr and Barack Jr.
One other point on this is that Dunham and her parents were from KS as was Davis. In addition Davis knew her family when they lived in KS so the realtionship between Dunham and Davis goes way back to even before he moved to Chicago where he lived for over 20 years before moving to Hawaii with Helen Canfield his white “socialite” wife who was from Chicago. As a side note Canfield’s parents disowned her when she married Davis.
She gave him 5 children so it is not like Davis did not father any children from a white women.
Where’s the birth certificate?
The real smoking gun is the echo the controversy the missing documents has created. Everyone knows now, oh crazy and fake sure, but they know… Lou Dobbs is being threatened, he has a good feeling about the birth certificate…
As Obama’s popularity wanes, below 50%… Then defending him because his base is so powerful will dilute… Time is on our side sooner or later, the questions about why not release the birth certificate will start raining down on him…
Why not do full research on his sister Maya Sotoro, doesn’t she have a Hawaiin COLB and born in Indonesia? The Birth Certificate will not be released, for whatever reason. It rightfully should have been released before the election at any rate. The story on Canada Free Press Article on obama supporters being violent at town hall meetings http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13483 …There was also an article about major news anchors being threatened not to mention the birth certificate issues, cases or else!!! These are the stories you finish reporting on with and what can you expect from a public servent who hasn’t revealed his vital records…
He is so dirty it unbelievable, look at Fitzpatrick and his cases. Obama is probably stealling stimulus money, and certainly sending it to Soros. One of these days it will all dribble out. Trans-parency doesn’t mean a black dad and white mom…
Rachel Maddow is no one to be calling ANYONE a “wack-job.” She cannot even understand simple anatomy; and can’t seem to figure out females do not go with females.
Even ANIMALS know that.
Phil,
Thought you’d be happy to know that there is at least one issue you can stop pretending is still unsettled. It’s now official. In court testimony today in the Liberi v. Taitz lawsuit it was verified that “Ron Polarik” is (as we have known for a couple weeks now) Ron Polland: a man with exactly zero expertise in document or digital document forensics. It is now proven that as “Polarik” he lied several times regarding his degrees, experience and areas of expertise, something that was identified a year ago by real experts in these and related fields based entirely on the incompetence of his analysis of the Obama COLB.
Also, Orly’s latest motion in Cook v. Simtech was tossed out by the Florida judge (again in record time) for being “frivolous and wholly without merit.” And yesterday the Craig v. United States appeal was also rejected, in the process taking note of Supreme Court decisions in which SCOTUS used the terms “native born” and “natural born” as interchangeable and synonymous.
Another tough week for the Birther movement. I guess that explains your publishing an article announcing a “game change” when absolutely nothing changed. Well, unless you count Birther lawyers extending their perfect steak of epic fail.
Want to take any bets on Kerchner v. Obama?
Hmmmmmmm?
Hi,
If “desperate = birthers”.
Then “Obot Spin-Meisters = Constitutional Oborters”
See the About section of the official The Birthers website:
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
HD,
We do have evidence that Obama was born in Kenya:
We have the testimony of Sara Obama who says she was present at the birth there at Mombasa.
We have the testimony of Anabaptism Missionaries that the went to the Registry at Mombasa and Gov. office at Nairobi, respectively, and the officials there told him that this was true, he was born in Kenya.
That’s 3 witnesses.
Obama’s witnesses to being born in HI: Zero…
————
Oh, and you cannot impugn the testimony of Sara Obama, because you were not there, so anything you say is gratuitous assertionss, only the affidavits of those at the interview count. And I have seen no testimony from anyone in Kenya, alive in 1961, discounting a birth at Mombasa.
So yes, we have evidence of birth in Kenya, none in HI..
————
Have a nice day…
Release the long form BC Obama. The American public is getting sick of this thug fraud. Not only does he want to euthanize granny and grandpa – he wants to beat them up first.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8:
The 12th enumerated power
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”
The Law of Nations is referencing de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, SECTION 212:
“The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
The birth certificate mean absoutely nothing unless it identifes someone other that a Kenyan as the father.
Maybe it is time we upped the ante. Anyone calling another U.S. citizen, who merely seeks to apply the rule of law to EVERYONE, including presidents who may be fraudulent usurpers, a “birther”, shall henceforth be guilty of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, a felony.
The man has total allegiance to kenya no matter where he was born. This is why I will never be a birther. It’s a total distraction. He could have been born in the middle of Kansas the heartland, but due to the fact that his father is kenyan he has total allegiance to kenya. He has done a great job of deceiving the American people into putting him into office. And now his next goal is to destroy the country. He can’t stand what is right. Don’t be fooled. This is not kenya this is the United States. We are far better off than kenya and we should not be dragged down to their size. See ya’ to be continued
Phil
I have read that negative change has come to America having sold its soul. Having first read Dr. Edwin Vieira’s work in 1983 I was interested in more detail when I became aware of this site;
http://www.committeesofsafety.org/store/
Watch the free video and see if you agree that this is our only answer. My only fear is that it is to late. The hidden hand was so “in your face” about this obama british thing and as they suspected the people didn’t care about the constitution because they did not know or understand the Constitution. Lower case intentional.
As far as the BC is concerned – what a distractor. I think Phil covered a discussion about “natural born citizen” by Leo Donofrio as it was some time ago – I may be in error. Anyway I have found some sites which are of interest on the subject:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
http://www.thebirthers.org/
and
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm
For this last site see section 212 but also be sure to read …/Vattel.html above as it gives some clarification.
And as an aside as to why McCain is a natural born citizen see section 217 which for me answers my gut reaction, “of course his farther was on orders for the nation”. I will concede to Mr Donofrio as he probably has researched the subject and I have not.
And for you other people out there that cannot spell please also use;
http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?answer=32703&ctx=mi&hl=en or another spell checker.
It is pathetic, to listen, to, Black Lion, and all the other obots,trying to cover for Obama, saying that, we should refer to the “COLB”, as a controlling document, showing Obama to be a natural born citizen. Just pathetic.
No document exists. The “COLB” is a computer generated forgery. No document could accurately, declare, Obama, to be, a natural born citizen. No such document, could ever be created, unless the Constitution, is amended, to allow, non natural born citizens, to be eligible, to be President and Commander in Chief.
There is no “COLB”. They refer us to a computer generated, photoshopped, forged, image, of a supposed Hawaiian document, designed, to fool the public. Obots, referencing, a forgery, as proof, that Obama is legitimate, just expands the scope, of the fraud, and the cover up.
Aside from not releasing the long form of his BC, Obama has not released one shred of evidence that proves he is even a U.S. citizen, much less an NBC. College records are missing, senate records missing, medical records not released, only a 1 page statement from a doctor stating he was in good health; Selective Service registration appears forged, passport not released and may have been destroyed, no kindergarten records, only records from a Muslim School in Jakarta where he was known as Barry Soetero, newspaper article announcing birth appears to have been tampered with. Was his name ever legally changed? We do not know one thing about this man who was elected to the highest office with the help of ACORN. Obama was preordained by Soros and the left wing nut jobs that want a NWO. Keep drinking the kool-aid and one day you will wake up and wonder what in the hell happened.
I beg to differ. The law is in article II. Then one uses one’s common sense for establishing birth place and parents. If it needs to be written down to figure out how to establish where a person was born and were their parents citizens, the person verifying probably does not belong in that job. There are many levels of safeguards in the system. One of the most powerful, after reading some federalist papers, was the electoral college, established to protect the general public from voting for unknown entities. This electoral college was a protective device, expected to make sure the candidates were eligible and worthy. This part of the safeguard seems to have been overtaken by the major parties, who have shown they are now illegal entities, defrauding the public and stealing money for fraudulent candidates. For a voter to seek to determine qualifications and be turned away by their own court system is another safeguard that has been violated. People can say there are no laws written to establish eligibility, but there are plenty of levels. That is why Kerchner is suing Congress, another safeguard which violated their role, because they are all corrupt and refuse to fulfill their oath of office. God bless America.
Phil et all …
In most states a certification of birth is sufficient to prove incontrovertible citizenship. Hawaii, however, being our westernmost outpost-turned-state, was a natural port of entry of aliens decades before its statehood. So its Certification documents were also used to register out of country births. And as time passed the lax atmosphere of Hawaii took it toll and requirements to issue such certifications became nearly non-existant. The issuance of a certification automatically triggered the notices in the two local papers, whether it was a local birth or the recording of an out of country birth.
For these reasons the security agencies of the U.S. did not issue security clearances based solely on Hawaii’s COLB.
Ask an illegitimizer where Obama’s grandmother lived when he was born. Did they have faxes back then? Did Obama’s grandmother have access to one back then? How long did it take to fly from Mombassa to Hawaii or Washington state in 1961? Remember you pick up a day crossing the Date Line. Was Ann concerned about citizenship issues given Barack Sr.’s British citizenship and Kenyan wife, and Barry being born out of the country? There is no evidence contraindicating such a plausible, and even likely, situation. THAT is why an examination of the documents that produced the COLB are essential.
Our Founding Fathers came together from many factions and perspectives to put our Constitution together. I don’t believe that a single one of them would sit still for a British citizen to sit in the office of President. And the members of Congress call US wackos!
Phil – If I follow your logic there is no explicit law enforcing Presidential eligibility yet there is a Constitutional requirement.
Since there is no explicit enforcement at the Federal level this
must be a matter for the states under the 10th Amendment. To date
no state has shown any interest in pursuing an enforcement action.
So we are left with a done deal with no way to back out. This would
seem to be true for the election. As an ongoing issue the only hope
seems to be a successful quo warranto action. Criminal prosecutions
for fraud and other crimes would have to come from Federal prosecutors
and this would be a long shot. Is that how you see it?
NewEnglandPatriot,
Both Dr. Polarik and TexasDarlin (blog) have pointed out the detail of the 2007 date stamp on the electronically-generated COLB. Both of these sources claim that Hawaii had claimed to them that no COLB had been issued in June, 2007 (which I think is the month of the date stamp.
However, since it appears that Hawaii has confirmed that the actual birth certificate has never been released, then the question naturally becomes: is the short-form COLB sufficient enough to determine presidential eligibility? Of course, I think not.
-Phil
Black Lion,
While I appreciate that you have further opinion on the subject, I think the phrase I’ve just quoted from you sums it up, as I’ve been saying it since long before you arrived at my site.
So, it comes down to this: If there is no law that dictates anything with respect to enforcing eligibility (much less to whatever degree), who’s to say what makes the determination?
-Phil
HistorianDude,
Aren’t you contradicting what Newsmax.com has just reported? Do you have additional information that has not yet been revealed?
-Phil
sue,
The point is that it is not the obligation of the Health Department to vet what information they receive regarding any individual; this is why many government forms have clauses in them that state that the signer is under certain penalties if they’ve provided less than truthful data.
Further, if we’re going to paraphrase what Dr. Fukino’s office has said regarding Mr. Obama’s vital documentation, let’s get it right. She never confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. She has only ever confirmed that his vital records are on file in similar fashion to any other individual’s records and that she believes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
Of course, with no corroborating evidence, there’s no way to confirm or deny what the Director has said. And no, I don’t take any official simply at their word unless I have that corroborating evidence which confirms what they’re saying. And no, I don’t think this is unhealthy; I know for a fact that many on the left would never take G. W. Bush for his word, so what’s the difference?
-Phil
St. Lucie,
Actually, TCOT beat them to it, and I beat them to it, too, by reporting on TCOT’s report.
-Phil
jvn,
I’m still awaiting a response from FactCheck.org on this alleged COLB they claim to have on hand for Mr. Obama. I want to know if individuals other than FactCheck.org have ever actually seen the physical document.
Let’s not wax into the hypotcritical side of life by being OK with FactCheck.org’s picture on the Net but be willing to completely invalidate any other third-party’s claims. As far as I’m concerned, until all claimed documents can be physically verified by independent analyses, I don’t understand why FactCheck.org is singularly allowed to be the authority regarding their own pictures much less any documents that only they have on hand.
In other words, perhaps the opposition suffers from a lack of education regarding the recent events of bogus pics flying across the great information superhighway.
-Phil
This has always been the FRAUD’S intentions….he has never intended to be a UNITER…MORE like a DIVIDER!!!!
Pitting Americans Against Each Other:
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/how-obama-is-pitting-americans-against-each-other/
KJ,
Thanks for updating my own terminology. This is precisely the point that Newsmax.com was making.
A COLB for Hawaii is simply a “pointer” to another piece of paper.
Of course, why people are so upset that some of us are asking for the full story behind the COLB is rather mystifying.
-Phil
This has been the FRAUD’S intentions all along….he has never been the great UNITER…more like the great DIVIDER!!! Now get out of the way and sit down and shut up you Americans that don’t trust me!!!
Pitting Americans Against Each Other:
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/how-obama-is-pitting-americans-against-each-other/
brygenon,
First of all, in case you didn’t pick up the terminology from this very posting, a birth certificate has never been produced for Mr. Obama. Therefore, the best thing that you have — as an opposition commenter on this site — is a certification of live birth, which is merely a piece of paper that says that there is another piece of paper with more information on it (in theory; we don’t know).
Secondly, please show where the lack of questioning a previous President’s vital records is in some way contingent upon what occurs with the current President.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Nobody who follows this site has ever said that the COLB would not be reasonable enough for certain aspects of proving citizenship.
Nobody has similarly been able to show where there is any law that shows exactly what defines natural born citizenship in all cases regarding the presidential eligibility clause.
-Phil
qwertyman,
That is obviously one possibility. However, the bigger point is that the Health Department is not obligated to vet incoming information, either.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
People are talking about it, aren’t they?
I neither see this as a bad thing nor as something that is going to shut me up about it.
-Phil
brygenon,
You see, where I come from, when I have a picture on the Internet of a COLB that claims to have been procured sometime in June 2007, and I see an article such as the link above that talks about things that have occurred in the Health Department in 2009, that doesn’t change the fact that the Health Department still has original 1961 documentation on file and that the Health Department has confirmed that they haven’t released a copy of the original certificate.
-Phil
nautique196 says:
“I see there are a lot of new visitors/commenters to this site. For all the people that believe Obama to be transparent I would like to know why he refuses to release any college records? Many liberals loved to point out that George Bush was stupid and made fun of his Yale transcripts, as they were available. Why for Obama, are just degrees sufficient?”
Full disclosure.
RealAmerica,
Excellent commentary.
Also remember the racial component of it all: dare anyone question a black man (even if he’s only ~25% African; for the left, it’s only the melanin that counts, right?)? Of course that would be considered racist (really, they mean “bigoted”), right?
I think not.
-Phil
Concerned Citizen,
While I have documented where a number of States have considered eligibility statutes, I think your analysis of the 10th Amendment is spot-on.
In other words, it is absolutely lawful for the States and/or we, the People to pursue these questions until such time as evidence (or the lack thereof) supports a satisfactory conclusion.
-Phil
Phil says:
Not only did I pick it up, I showed it was nonsense, complete with a citation to the Hawaiian authorities: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html The COLB is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii, and Hawaiian-born Americans have been using for years to prove their citizenship by birth.
So again, no other President exhibited his birth certificate, but when Barack Obama shows the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii, in his case it’s somehow not enough.
As we’ve sen it is a birth certificate, but more importantly it’s a state record. One might think that to satisfy a Constitutional requirement, a record that the Constitution grants “full faith and credit” (Article IV, Section 1) would be ideal, and of course it would be if the eligibility deniers actually respected the Constitution and the rule of law.
Phil, this whole statement is a lie, and you know it. She has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.” (emphesis mine)
That confirms that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.
–Dunst
It also proves what the date he was born, the city he was born in, the county that he was born in, the state that he was born in, the Island he was born on, and who his mother, and his father were.
You just can’t get around that. If you consider the COLB not a forgery, then you can’t get around the fact that it states: “City of Birth: Honolulu,” and “County of Birth: Honolulu,” and “Island of Birth: Oahu.” Janice Okubo has already said that you cannot get a birth certificate from the state that says that you were born in Honolulu, if you weren’t born in Honolulu.
Now, don’t go into the fraud scenario. You have no evidence that there was fraud registering the birth.
I hate to tell you this. But if it didn’t prove the location of birth, then why does the State Department accept it as primary evidence of the place you were born?
And when I applied for a passport less than 6 months ago, I submitted a piece of paper, certified by the state, that had the following: my full name, the full name of my parents, date of birth, the city of birth, the county of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records. It also had, as extra information, the birth place of my parents. At no time was this not accepted as evidence of the place of my birth. My passport arrived from the State Department about a month and a half later.
So, let me ask you. Why do you feel that proving your birth place to the Federal Government is any different than proving your birth place to the Federal Government?
Well folks, it took Obama 6 months to decide on what kind of dog to get, but he wants to rush through a health plan in one week. He shows a piece of paper as a birth certificate (Chris Matthews, shame on you) and the world follows behind the pied piper. But as per usual with Obama, there’s new news on the wire:
NEWS ALERT!
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
National Guard asked to explain ‘internment’ jobs
American Grand Jury & World Net Daily are reporting:
“Campaign recruiting for workers at ‘civilian resettlement facility”
http://americangrandjury.org/go-army-mos-31e-internment-camp-specialist/comment-page-1#comment-1794
They’re getting the FEMA camps ready. Obama is the devil.
“An ad campaign featured on a U.S. Army website seeking those who would be interested in being an “Internment/Resettlement” specialist is raising alarms across the country, generating concerns that there is some truth in those theories about domestic detention camps, a roundup of dissidents and a crackdown on “threatening” conservatives.”
********************************************************************
Folks, I heard about 5 months ago, they want to put us in them camps. And now the military is hiring for employees to come work in the once empty camps? If all hell breaks loose when the banking system closes in Sept/Oct/Nov then they can declare marshall law and use them camps. Anyway, that’s what I heard from a policeman, that FEMA has been training the police around the country and they are federalizing police depts and hospitals (not rural sheriff’s, but cities with populations over 1 million) to be ready for riots for when the banking systems close down. CNN is already getting into the NewSpeak by calling the elderly folks who protest at the townhalls “domestic terrorists” – they’re going to use that against anyone who goes up against them.
Who knows if those dates will be exact, but Aug/Sept is when they anticipated it. Check these out and judge for yourself.
AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm
BANKING SYSTEMS CLOSING AUG/SEPT
Phil,
FYI
Craig v US Appeal Dismissed
Phil,
You as a moderator attempt to remain even, and I respect that. However, you must have noticed that the ‘cat and mouse’ game being played out by the Hawaii DoH smacks of legal advice of ‘how to cover-up for the State of Hawaii and Barrack Obama’. Even the Obots must be aware of a multi-million dollar lawyer game being played to prevent record release, it is just undeniable.
The actions of the Obots is not consistent with a search for truth, because we all know we don’t have it yet, but more of an attempt to justify a position. Herein lies the real question on these boards, why do some people continue to support Obama when he won’t spend a few hundred dollars to release a long form birth certificate, some college entrance, and student loan records?
Consider starting a board to answer this question. Do they want socialsim and communism? Do they hate the Constitution? Do they have voters remorse? Are they racists (or reverse racists)? Do they blindly follow all elected POTUS, like for instance GWB, and now just follow Obama? Do they think voter fraud is good? Do these individuals belong to Unions and have some ‘sweet deal’? Are some of the posters on this board being supported by the Federal Government and White House to post here? Like Obama’s past, we have many many questions a few answers.
nautique196:
Because college has nothing to do with his eligibility for the Presidency. The Judge in Keye’s v. Obama specifically made that ruling months ago.
George Bush never released his college record either.
Making fun of a President is protected free speech. Access to his or her college transcript is not.
Jim D. Andrews:
Either your memory is not very good, or you spoke to someone who did not know the rules. Medicare is a Federal (not an Oklahoma) program, so Oklahoma cannot have different rules from anywhere else. A “Certificate of live Birth” or a “Certification” of Live Birth” is accepted.
I did the paperwork for both my parents with computer printout certifications from Pennsylvania that are essentially identical to Obama’s COLB.
Stock:
Because unlike Obama, McCain was not born on American soil, therefore his citizenship could derive only from statute, and not from the Constitution.
Doubt (at least the “little, eensy, weensy” kind) is meaningless. Law dictates. There is not (and never has been) a proscription in any American statute, or in the Constitution itself from a dual citizen being eligible for the office.
syc1959:
You are in error. The COLB is officially validated by Dr. Onaka’s statement on the back and the seal of the Hawaii, DoH. That is the specific (and only) state validation required by law and regulation.
Asking for anything more is moving the goalposts.
JeffM:
The “de Vattel definition” did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. therefore it can have had no influence whatsoever on what the Framers understood “natural born citizen” to mean.
There was a single definition of natural born citizen at that time, and iot was the definition of British Common Law. There was no other.
And that definition was “born on national soil.” Full stop.
The Congress has all sorts of powers. Some they use, and some they don’t.
There is no evidence that the phrase “Laws of Nations” in the Constitution has anything to do with de Vattel’s book. Certainly you know that there were Laws of Nations before he was ever even born, right?
49 out 50 states have officially adopted British Common Law via reception statutes. Exactly zero have similarly adopted de Vattel.
OK I am running against ‘bama in the 2012 election (theoretically)
That gives me “standing” that I theoretically didn’t have (theoretically speaking that is).
I ask ‘bama a question.
“Do you have undivided loyalties to the United States of America?”
He answers “No”.
I than postulate “Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America is?”
He responds “No”.
And I have one more question for the imposter at this point as he is leaving aghast the populous of the greatest country in the world (and no thanks to him).
Are you even a United States Citizen and when did you take the oath to become same being that your fathers citizenship to Britain or kenya was passed down to you?
You see everybody there is no where to run no where to hide. The man is not even “president” right now because he is breaking the law the Constitution. I don’t have to listen to anything he says and for the sake of argument until a Natural Born Citizen is in that office there is nobody there. He is simply a thief with cnn the brainwashing channel complicit to his crimes. Martinez is announcing resigning. The heat is on from the American Grand Jury who has given congress ten days from last Tuesday to take action against the invader or be held as complicit to breaking the Constitution. I do not have to and will not take orders from a non-Natural Born Citizen in the oval office per orders of George Washington the Father of my country. I am a Natural Born Citizen and meet all of the Constitutional requirements to run for president if I so choose. If you are not a Natural Born Citizen you do not have an inalienable right to even be put on the ballot. Once again if you did not understand what I just wrote read it again.
tishri:
The Supreme Court of the United States and the US Department of State disagree with you.
C. n. natus:
You have been misinformed. Sarah Obama has never said she was present at Obama’s birth. This has never been more than a baseless Internet rumor. When the Anabaptist missionaries you cite below tried to trick her into saying so, they were rather directly disabused of their notion, and repeatedly told that they were wrong, Obama was born in Hawaii not Kenya.
This is all on tape. Have you never bothered to listen to it?
Get a dictionary and look up the word “hearsay.” An anonymous person claiming that they were told something by an another anonymous person is, in case you are unaware, not exactly a witness to anything.
I hardly have to impugn testimony that does not exist.
The “affidavits” from the inteview are meaningless for two reasons. One, they are signed with a false name. Two, the only affidavit that would be actual witness testimony would be Sarah’s. And no such affidavit exists.
Again, let us refresh.
Evidence that Obama was Born in Hawaii:
1. A state issued and certified COLB.
2. Two contemporary announcements from Hawaiian newspapers.
3. An official and authoritative statement from the Hawaii Director of Health.
4. The personal testimony of Obama.
5. The personal testimony of his sister.
Evidence that Obama was Not Born in Hawaii:
1.__________________________________________________
Phil:
Phil:
Of course.
Nope. We both have additional information that Newsmax has ignored.
Such as that the COLB is a birth certificate.
Phil says:
August 8, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“Further, if we’re going to paraphrase what Dr. Fukino’s office has said regarding Mr. Obama’s vital documentation, let’s get it right. She never confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. She has only ever confirmed that his vital records are on file in similar fashion to any other individual’s records and that she believes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.”
Actually Phil she did say that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Her actual comment stated that she had “seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.” I don’t know if she could state it any more clearly.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
bob strauss says:
August 8, 2009 at 12:59 pm
It is pathetic, to listen, to, Black Lion, and all the other obots,trying to cover for Obama, saying that, we should refer to the “COLB”, as a controlling document, showing Obama to be a natural born citizen. Just pathetic.
Bob, you are the pathetic one. I don’t say that you should refer to the COLB as a controlling document. The State of HI and the US Constitution does. HI has indicated that it is their only currently issued state document to prove birth. And the Constituion states we have to give full faith in state records. I believe in the law. Period.
No document exists. The “COLB” is a computer generated forgery.
Do you have some proof of that? Because no one with any relevant background has made that determination. Unless you are going to cite Polarik, or Ronald Jay Polland. If not then it is only your opinion. Which is inadmissible. However the state of HI has already stated that a document exists and the President was born in HI. Period.
No document could accurately, declare, Obama, to be, a natural born citizen.
There doesn’t have to be. The Constitution never determined what was a natural born citizen. All the document has declared was that President Obama was born in the US.
No such document, could ever be created, unless the Constitution, is amended, to allow, non natural born citizens, to be eligible, to be President and Commander in Chief.
This statement is irrelevant since the President was born in America. And the Constitution does not define what is a natural born citizen.
There is no “COLB”.
Not according to the Republican administration of the state of HI.
They refer us to a computer generated, photoshopped, forged, image, of a supposed Hawaiian document, designed, to fool the public.
They refer you to a picture of a document that the state of HI has already stated agrees with their records that the President was born in HI.
Obots, referencing, a forgery, as proof, that Obama is legitimate, just expands the scope, of the fraud, and the cover up.
If you say so. Of course you have no proof to support your accusations.
rj says:
August 8, 2009 at 6:45 am
U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8:
The 12th enumerated power
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”
The Law of Nations is referencing de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, SECTION 212:
__________________________________________________________________
Can you show us where in the US Constitution that it states that this section was refering to the infamous obscure Swiss philospher? Can you cite the paragraph that states that? There is no evidence that the founder fathers were refering to that book when discussing piracy on the high seas. Good try though.
Civis Naturaliter Natus says:
August 8, 2009 at 12:19 am
HD,
We do have evidence that Obama was born in Kenya:
We have the testimony of Sara Obama who says she was present at the birth there at Mombasa.
But she does not say that. No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it does not make it true. She says he was born in America, in HI. Not Kenya.
We have the testimony of Anabaptism Missionaries that the went to the Registry at Mombasa and Gov. office at Nairobi, respectively, and the officials there told him that this was true, he was born in Kenya.
Can you link us to that statement? So we are relying on some non-corroborated third party hearsay? Of course that is evidence.
That’s 3 witnesses.
Obama’s witnesses to being born in HI: Zero…
————
Oh, and you cannot impugn the testimony of Sara Obama, because you were not there, so anything you say is gratuitous assertionss, only the affidavits of those at the interview count.
Since she does not say he was born in Kenya, I agree with you.
And I have seen no testimony from anyone in Kenya, alive in 1961, discounting a birth at Mombasa.
You don’t need to. Because of the HI issued COLB, and the statement of the spokeperson for the Republican administration saying “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
So yes, we have evidence of birth in Kenya, none in HI..
Actually you got that backwards…We have no evidence of a birth in Kenya, all of the legal and admissible evidence says HI. You have a great day.
————
Have a nice day…
Phil says:
August 8, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“In other words, it is absolutely lawful for the States and/or we, the People to pursue these questions until such time as evidence (or the lack thereof) supports a satisfactory conclusion.”
States may not alter the qualifications for federal elected office that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Any law passed by a state to define or control Presidential eligibility would be struck down as unconstitutional.
In US Term Limits, Inc v. Thornton, the SC concluded The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. The same would be true of any attempt to adopt qualifications for President. If you want to define Presidential Eligibility, you’re going to have to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
In a normal world, how does the vetting process work for a Presidential candidate?
After the political conventions, and the candidates are nominated,we always heard, the politicians, and the “news media”, make statements, about how the “vetting, of the nominees, would now begin”.
I always pictured, closed door meetings, where a group of politicians, would comb through, all of the nominee’s records, from birth, to present, to make sure, there was, no skeletons, in the nominee’s closet.
Is there any precedent, for a normal, method of vetting a Presidential candidate?
August 7, 2009 at 4:41 pm Black Lion said: “However in an article that Newsmax wrote before, they said the following… ”
Here’s the deal: Newsmax is not an author. Newsmax is a media entity that employs writers and also at times has guest writers and commentators. Therefore, there is no monolithic “Newsmax” that mandates its authors to write in ideological lockstep. They allow for a wide range of opinions, unlike many of the so-called mainstream media “lions” such as the New York Times. Kessler is one writer among many. He’s entitled to his opinion, and other writers at the same media entity are entitled to theirs.
Phil, you are careful (and responsible) to use the word “claim” when you talk about the supposed June 2007 release of the COLB. Since we have been the ones always about verifiable, citable facts, this issue has always bothered me. Why? The people (such as Polarik and I think syc on youtube) who mentioned that Onaka “never confirmed that a COLB was released” are playing the same trick that the media did — reading in conclusions that aren’t there. The reality is that Hawaii isn’t allowed to comment and therefore cannot by law confirm that one was released. So it doesn’t prove anything, yet these same people lead us to believe that they said they DID NOT release the document at that time, when in reality they cannot SAY if they released one. Big difference. It was disconcerting to see that method used by those seeking the truth.
Again, to your credit, you said,
“And no, I don’t think this is unhealthy; I know for a fact that many on the left would never take G. W. Bush for his word, so what’s the difference?”
Outstanding point. It is the OBVIOUS truth that no one admits, because it is convenience and against their cause, hypocritical and self-indicting. That Fukino statement probably hurt them more, because if it’s so obvious, Fukino, release the document! Still, it seems less and less likely that Obama will ever have to open the record (or any record) up.
At the very least I just want NBC defined. I feel like it should have been done with the McCain suits — but perhaps the SCOTUS didn’t do it because they knew how dangerous it would be to set the precedent that could immediately disqualify Obama? Unfortunately, since they are human, I think they do consider the big picture to a great degree and timing is important in their decision to take cases. Don’t you think? Whether we agree or not …
brygenon,
I don’t think you picked up on all my points at all. However, instead of repeating them over and over again, apparently this thread of conversation has come to a standstill.
-Phil
dunstvangeet,
By what authority does she make this claim and according to what documentation? It becomes a circular argument, doesn’t it, whereby one must absolutely believe only what the public servant professes and simply not question it, correct?
Do you really think it’s so bad to demand the background documentation to make sure that everyone is on the same page with this?
-Phil
dunstvangeet,
Assuming that the documentation provided to the Health Department is correct, then she is correct. The Department cannot go on anything less than what they’ve been provided; they also are not tasked with vetting the information provided to them.
Simply put, there are no requirements to enforce the degree to which one is eligible to be President. Therefore, this is a moot point.
-Phil
Pete,
If someone wishes to start such a forum, by all means — they should knock their socks off. I think there may be a number of them in place already.
What I’m promoting on my site is a civil discussion concerning all aspects of (especially) eligibility. Comments have been and will continue to be monitored for uncivil behavior.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
So now we’re saying that there is a law that has been created with a standard of the degree to which eligibility can be determined? Could you point that one out for me?
-Phil
HistorianDude,
So, the lack of law (or any part thereof) necessarily means that anyone can be President? Well, goodness! So much for that natural born citizen part of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5!
-Phil
HistorianDude,
I am still awaiting a response from FactCheck.org on who all actually has physically seen this COLB.
And did you know, my dear opposition commenter, that the COLB appears to have a date stamp of June, 2007, when, in fact, the article was written in August, 2008, if I recall correctly?
Lots of prep work on behalf of the Obama Campaigh, eh?
-Phil
HistorianDude,
The fundamental presumption for the first 5 pieces of evidence is that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, but yet nobody seems to know exactly where, per se (unlike the locations of all previous 43 Presidents)…
[sarcasm]
I think he was air-lifted to the State; wouldn’t that make sense, since nobody’s being specific about the precise location of his birth, nor is a mid-wife, physician, or related persons available who would otherwise be coming forward to point out that they were there when the future President was born?
[/sarcasm]
-Phil
HistorianDude,
Survey says, *BEEEEEEEEEEEP!* [picture an X coming up on your computer screen now ........... and it's gone]
I only know what the testimony of others is alleged to have said. I have already contacted the HI DOH about the COLB, and they’ve told me it’s not public information. Apparently Newsmax asked a different question (which they did) and got a more solid response.
So, while you can certainly espouse that you have evidence (that you’re obviously not sharing, nah, nah-nah, nah-boo-boo) that the COLB = birth certificate, I think you’re wrong.
-Phil
Black Lion,
…and I don’t think I could state my position on this update of nothing new more clearly.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Ooooo, nice touch. Point out that the State of Hawaii is currently governed by Republicans to make it sound like party affiliation actually has any bearing on what’s going on here.
And yet, I’m being told by the opposition that the GOP doesn’t like the eligibility question… “things that make you go, ‘hmmmmm….’” (apologies to C&C Music Factory).
-Phil
So, the lack of law (or any part thereof) necessarily means that anyone can be President? Well, goodness! So much for that natural born citizen part of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5!
-Phil
Phil,
Some very honest posters in various places are saying just that. There is no game playing, no screeds, no bombarding of citations and arguments from Politijab. That is what I think is a very serious problem. Obama has been raised to that status. One manifestation of that is clear: journalism has died. It shows not just with the eligibility issue, but with the state of the nation in general. The press sees its job as promoting agendas.
Joseph Farah us supposed to be going on Nightline.
Anonymous,
Why, yes, I am aware of US Term Limits v. Thornton (my posting here). And if you’ll actually read what the Justices said, States cannot impose additional qualifications on candidates or what not, as that would clearly be extra-constitutional in nature.
However, so far, nobody’s come up with a reasonable argument to say that States cannot enforce already-existing law as embodied within the Constitution.
-Phil
bob strauss,
As I point out in my Qualifications category, the only legally-recognized form of eligibility enforcement to date is a piece of paper on which the candidate self-ascribes as being eligible for high office.
And if you take a look at the Republican or Democratic party rule books, you’ll notice that it’s otherwise up to the party faithful to hold the leadership and the candidates to account for their qualifications (quite similar to the premise that there is a law for eligibility, and not necessarily that there’s an obligation to fulfill that law, legally-speaking).
-Phil
Joseph Maine,
I think for the most part we agree. However, I think your conclusion regarding McCain and SCOTUS is a bit leading.
The Court is not easily given to wade into the murky depths of Legislative issues involving elections. They appear to only want to become involved when there’s been a blatant question of constitutionality for something that wouldn’t otherwise throw the republic into complete disarray.
Now, see, I’m waxing into a leading conclusion by saying that if Mr. Obama were deemed ineligible that this would somehow throw the country into chaos (actually, at this point, I’d wager that there’d probably be a lot of people glad to get him out of office, if for no other reason than the Marxist spending and legislation that he’s been agreeing to over the short time he’s held the position).
We don’t know what would happen, but I can bet that the country would move forward just fine like it always has in the past. Yet, there are plenty “behind the beltway” and in the chattering class who don’t want to be seen as antagonistic to the major political parties in favoring acceptance in the club over favoring the smallest aspect of the Constitution.
-Phil
Sharon 2,
OK. So this brings up the next point:
If I’m OK with the opposition being “fine and dandy” with whomever is in power (regardless of how they got there), why is the opposition so hell-bent on individuals such as myself not being OK with the same situation?
Because it is all a game. It’s a game of who wields power at the moment; “he [she] who has the gold, makes the rules.” It doesn’t matter to some what the Constitution says; “their guy” is in, that’s all that matters.
Of course, if the tables were turned, I guarantee the belly-aching would commence in full force.
This is why true tolerance is tolerating intolerance, and that’s precisely what I do on my site (as long as it’s civil).
But, it’s so hard to be civil when all you have to go on is a belief with no evidence to back it up; being a Christian (about which some have actually made fun here on my site, go figure) certainly has made me make sure that what I believe is based on evidence and not indigestion!
-Phil
Historiandude said:
Alright then, point out your cited “Law of Nations” statutes that Congress can cite that won’t interrupt habeus corpus and allow them to prosecute without violating the Constitution.
Good luck.
Oh, and one more thing. What you are saying is a superset of Vattel’s Law of Nations so even if what you are saying is true, de Vattel still applies.
Larry Sinclair Is Right About Obama Being a Thug
http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/larry-sinclair-is-right-about-obama-being-a-thug/
Although the BC issue may have validity (I think I will just post mine on the Web, and the next time it is needed as verification, for a passport or whatever, I will just direct that party to an internet site. Lets see how far I get w/ that!). All the facts to determine if Obama is eleigible are already apparent. No further proof is needed. He has admitted that his citizenship was “GOVERNED” (his word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. As such he may even be a British Citizen to this day. Natural Born Citizen was defined last in Minor v. Happersett by the Supreme Court in 1874 when they said:
“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 their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
They said that a Natural Born Citizen is born in the US of Citizen Parents, almost exactly the wording of Law of Nations! Obama’s father was a British (Kenyan) citizen. Case closed.
Interesting article regarding a statement by a Kenyan official regarding the fake Kenyan BC….
“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya. “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday. “His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/53654/forged-kenyan-document-splinters-birther-movement
So the official statement from Kenyan officals is that the President was not born in Kenya. That goes along with the statement from official from HI stating that the President was born in HI.
Interesting article from Politico. The 11 congressman that are sponsoring the bill to require that Presidential candidates submit their BC’s were asked to submit their’s for a so called inspection. From the article…
“The bill’s original sponsor, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida, is out of the country but sent this e-mail: “I do not have a copy of my certificate handy, because there is no constitutional requirement for it.” He says he’d authorize us to get it from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, though, and will present a certified copy if he ever runs for president.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/So_wheres_your_birth_certificate_congressman.html?showall
So let me get this straight. The sponsor would submit a copy from his state’s bureau of Vital Statistics. Similar to President Obama submitting a copy from the Hawaiian Burean of Vital Statistics. He feels a certified copy is OK. President Obama submitted a certified copy. So for Posey submitting the same information that President Obama submitted is OK for him, but not for the President. Interesting.
Although the BC issue may have validity (I think I will just post mine on the Web, and the next time it is needed as verification, for a passport or whatever, I will just direct that party to an internet site. Lets see how far I get w/ that!). All the facts to determine if Obama is ineligible are already apparent. No further proof is needed. He has admitted that his citizenship was “GOVERNED” (his word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. As such he may even be a British Citizen to this day. Natural Born Citizen was defined last in Minor v. Happersett by the Supreme Court in 1874 when they said:
“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 their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
They said that a Natural Born Citizen is born in the US of Citizen Parents, almost exactly the wording of Law of Nations! Obama’s father was a British (Kenyan) citizen. Case closed.
Interesting commentary from inside Kenya regarding this issue and the forged Kenyan BC….
“But the birth certificate purporting Mr Obama was born in Kenya differs with genuine certificates issued in the early 1960s, the Nation can reveal. Certificates issued during the colonial period were marked “Colony and Protectorate of Kenya”. Today’s have the logo of the Government of Kenya, with a seal.”
“A British professor in African history points out the term “Coast Province” could not have been used in early 1964, Dan Branch, of the University of Warwick, said at that time, Kenyan provinces were referred to as “regions.”
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/635400/-/ull727/-/index.html
I would think the people of Kenya would know what their BC’s and Certificates would look like.
Black Lion,
To use the opposition logic, Mr. Posey isn’t running for President.
-Phil
“He’s entitled to his opinion,”
Bingo. This is just a reporters “opinion” with no factual evidence whatsoever to back up his opinion. No matter how the birthers continue to try to spin this, the actual facts speak for themselves. Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, eligible to be President of the United States. Oh wait, he’s not just elibible to be President, he IS the President of the United States.
“the Nordyke twins were born just hours after Barry, but are not in the listings; the Nordyke twins were born after Barry is supposed to have been boirn in the same hospital but have lower registry numbers; the address is compeltely wrong, however Dr. Nordyke’s clinic was located on that same highway and his wife used the addy as the address of record during her prenatal care.”
(Comment from Freep)
That is something I haven’t heard before: the birth of the Nordyke twins was not listed in the the newspaper announcements.
Black Lion says:
August 9, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Interesting article from Politico. The 11 congressman that are sponsoring the bill to require that Presidential candidates submit their BC’s were asked to submit their’s for a so called inspection. From the article…
“The bill’s original sponsor, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida, is out of the country but sent this e-mail: “I do not have a copy of my certificate handy, because there is no constitutional requirement for it.” He says he’d authorize us to get it from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, though, and will present a certified copy if he ever runs for president.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/So_wheres_your_birth_certificate_congressman.html?showall
So let me get this straight. The sponsor would submit a copy from his state’s bureau of Vital Statistics. Similar to President Obama submitting a copy from the Hawaiian Burean of Vital Statistics. He feels a certified copy is OK. President Obama submitted a certified copy. So for Posey submitting the same information that President Obama submitted is OK for him, but not for the President. Interesting.
********************************************************************
BL—Your interpretation is wrong…..he said he would AUTHORIZE a CERTIFIED copy of his “birth certificate”…something the FRAUD has never allowed….Hawaii even said they have never sent a certified copy to anyone of the FRAUD’S birth certificate because the FRAUD refuses to AUTHORIZE any such thing!!!
Black Lion says:
August 9, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Interesting article from Politico. The 11 congressman that are sponsoring the bill to require that Presidential candidates submit their BC’s were asked to submit their’s for a so called inspection. From the article…
“The bill’s original sponsor, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida, is out of the country but sent this e-mail: “I do not have a copy of my certificate handy, because there is no constitutional requirement for it.” He says he’d authorize us to get it from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, though, and will present a certified copy if he ever runs for president.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/So_wheres_your_birth_certificate_congressman.html?showall
So let me get this straight. The sponsor would submit a copy from his state’s bureau of Vital Statistics. Similar to President Obama submitting a copy from the Hawaiian Burean of Vital Statistics. He feels a certified copy is OK. President Obama submitted a certified copy. So for Posey submitting the same information that President Obama submitted is OK for him, but not for the President. Interesting.
********************************************************************
BL—Your interpretation is wrong…..he said he would AUTHORIZE a CERTIFIED copy of his “birth certificate”…something the FRAUD has never allowed….Hawaii even said they have never sent a certified copy to anyone of the FRAUD’S birth certificate because the FRAUD refuses to AUTHORIZE any such thing!!!
Black Lion,
One thing is for sure, they don’t seem to know much about their own country: the quote so many overseas sources in that Daily Nation article, its weird.
Evidently they don’t have any maps of Kenya either: because the British ones in American Libraries from 1958-1963, according to one post, term the region “Coast Province” at least in one year or another.
The problem I have with the Daily Nation article is its inconsistency.
1)If Mombasa was not part of Kenya; then what does it matter than Kenyan provinces were termed regions?
2)If Mombasa was not part of Kenya; then what does it matter what Kenyan documents look like?
3)If the Kenya Certificate of Registration is what is being discussed, why is the Daily Nation talking about Birth Certificates?
4)Why no byline? When other articles in Kenyan papers have bylines?
This article in the Kenyan Nation sounds like a paid advertisement bought by the State Department (like many such articles in Iraq during the Bush Administration) bought by Hilary. Its bush politics all over…(pun intended)!
Phil says:
August 9, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Black Lion,
To use the opposition logic, Mr. Posey isn’t running for President.
-Phil
________________________________________________________________
Phi, you are 100% correct. I just thought that it was interesting what his response was and the documents that he thought were all right for him to submit. But you are correct. He or none of those other guys are not running.
That other “twist”:
The Globe also quotes Canadian broadcaster Brian Barron as saying Obama’s mother gave birth to the child in Vancouver, Canada, before transferring as a student to the University of Washington in Seattle.
….
“But when she found out Obama Sr. had another wife, she chose to conceal Barack’s Canadian birth and registered him in Hawaii as a U.S. citizen to prevent Obama Sr. from possibly taking him away on his Kenyan passport,” says Barron.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106471
Mick says:
August 9, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Although the BC issue may have validity (I think I will just post mine on the Web, and the next time it is needed as verification, for a passport or whatever, I will just direct that party to an internet site. Lets see how far I get w/ that!). All the facts to determine if Obama is ineligible are already apparent. No further proof is needed. He has admitted that his citizenship was “GOVERNED” (his word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. As such he may even be a British Citizen to this day. Natural Born Citizen was defined last in Minor v. Happersett by the Supreme Court in 1874 when they said:
“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 their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
They said that a Natural Born Citizen is born in the US of Citizen Parents, almost exactly the wording of Law of Nations! Obama’s father was a British (Kenyan) citizen. Case closed.
________________________________________________________________
Mick, you neglected to post the section preceeding the one your posted and the line directly after the the section you posted. Once that information is added the meaning of the post you selected changes. It is not as clear cut as you would like us to think. It leaves a lot of questions regarding the definition of natural born is. Which still has not been determined by the Constitution or the Supreme Court.
The paragraph preceeding the one you reference says the following…
“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
If you notice the SCOTUS in the Minor Case were attempting to determine citizenship regarding an individual (a woman) before the adoption of the 14th amendment.
In the line right after the section you posted, the SCOTUS states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Meaning they were not going to make the determination on what a natural born citizen was. In addition the Court in this case is is making a distinction between natural born citizens and aliens and not plain citizens and natural born citizens.
So in summary the Minor case tells the following…a) us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized, b) there was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens, c) Minor does not resolve this question, d) it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized), e) United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.
Phil:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Phil:
If they meet the three criteria of Article 2, of course!
Phil:
We know.
Sure does.
No different from any other campaign.
Anonymous:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When have I ever mentioned anything about habeus corpus or “‘Law of Nations’ statutes?”
Again… I think you’re wandering off into a vast wasteland of irrelevancy. The issue is the definition of natural born citizen as used by the Framers.
Whatever that definition was, de Vattel can have had nothing to do with it, since he never offered one.
Mick:
You can’t “close the case” when you haven’t even provided the real quotation.
Minor v. Happersett did not define natural born citizen. In fact, in the part of the quotation that you edited out, it explicitly declined to do so.
HistorianDude:
Because college has nothing to do with his eligibility for the Presidency.
College records could shed light on eligibility, if aid was received as a foreigner.
George Bush never released his college record either.
This is incorrect as Bush releases his records, http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp
Making fun of a President is protected free speech. Access to his or her college transcript is not.
It is if you claim that you are going to have, “…the most transparent administration ever.”
Black Lion said:
Who cares what it looks like? The reality is this:
1. The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT hasn’t provided sufficient proof that the forged Hawaiian COLB is indeed genuine.
2. The KENYAN GOVERNMENT hasn’t provided sufficient proof that the forged Kenyan CCRB is indeed a fake.
The rest is background noise because we’re wasting time doing tit-for-tat. This massive forgery wave will continue until full disclosure is achieved and it will cause international confusion as to Soetoro’s allegiance. If the American people can’t trust this man, why should leaders of other nations do the same, especially over something that is so simple to do, costs very little to get, and takes very little time to complete? Do you think other diplomats and leaders aren’t aware of this lack of transparency with regards to natural born citizenship, the most important requirement for the leader of the U.S. government???
And I’m not talking about the birth nonsense. I’m talking about vetting the usurper for being qualified under the U.S. Constitution and it’s exact meaning and intent with regards to his birth privilege to the White House.
Phil,
http://jbjd.wordpress.com
This laywer claims the image of the jpg of the Birth Annoucement is unauthenticated, and that Obama’s lawyers way of responding to Hollister vs. Soetero indicates that there is no court acceptable proof any birth annoucement exists…
OK Let’s just say in theory I am running for president in the next presidential election.
I now theoretically have standing. (Even though I have standing regardless due to the fact that I am a law abiding tax paying citizen).
I ask of ‘bama “With whom do your loyalties lie?”
He responds “My loyalties lie with kenya.”
And now may I ask of you another question “Do you know what a Natural Born Citizen is?”
To which he responds “I have never heard of that.”
Anonymous says:
August 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Oh, and one more thing. What you are saying is a superset of Vattel’s Law of Nations so even if what you are saying is true, de Vattel still applies.
__________________________________________________________________
There is no proof that the US Constitution is refering to De Vattel. The section of the Constitution that Donofrio is referencing to try and say that the founding fathers were using de Vattel doesn’t make sense. At best it is a coincidence. Although the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8 does say:
The 12th enumerated power
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”
There is no proof that it is referencing the Law of Nations is referencing de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, SECTION 212.
The “Law of Nations” Donofrio cites from text in the Constitution is not referring to Vattel’s book title – it refers to “International Law” and did before Vattel and since. Vattel’s book includes so many unconstitutional laws, it is absurd to think they would be incorporated into the Constitution at all, much less “enforced”. You need to read Vattel’s whole book to see how bizarre your interpretation is.
For instance try Chapter 9 where he declares the law making it okay for a country with a woman shortage to kidnap women from other countries. Or Chapter 12 where he outlines the law giving the head of the government authority over religion and those who teach it! Your reference in the Constitution refers only to the international laws that controled piracy in the framer’s era.
Look up “Law of Nations” in Blackstone; it has always referred to international law, but many of Vattel’s “laws” are now crimes. It makes no sense that they would be refering to Vattel.
The birther dislike for Obama allows some individuals to try and rewrite history. That is unless the birthers are saying that Congress has the right to strip away all the legal rights of women, as Vattel’s treatise would approve?
Most birthers are probably unaware that Vattel’s book, which was only subtitled “Law of Nations” was actually just an expanded version of Christian Wolff’s prior treatise, which was actually titled, “The Law of Nations”.
Phile wrote:
Uh, right. I don’t see what you’re getting at. Did you think it should have self-destructed like in Mission Impossible?
Mick says:
It is a myth that Obama only showed a web image of his B.C. He made the actual document available for journalists to inspect and photograph, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Mick needs to actually read Minor v. Happersett. The section he’s quoting was considering the situation prior to the 14 Amendment: “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain [...]“
The 14′th Amendment resolved the issue. Anyone born in and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. is born a citizen, and that’s all “natural born citizen” means.
For confirmation, look up the term in Black’s Law Dictionary, or http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ or read Professor Amar’s explanation at http://slate.com/id/2183588/
sue,
Speaking for myself, I never claimed that Mr. Obama is currently anything less than POTUS.
Though I’m sure if you keep up this tone, I’ll be more than happy to censor your comments out of existence as well.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
See? Now you’re starting to sound like Press Secretary Gibbs when questioned about the whole snitch email and web site set up for those “un-American” mobsters known as concerned citizens.
-Phil
[Big swoosh sound as the truth completely sweeps over HistorianDude's head...]
-Phil
brygenon,
You’re just oozing and dripping with such animosity towards those of us who disagree with you, eh?
The point is that the document allegedly has a date that is more than a year prior to FactCheck.org’s actual posting about the alleged document. All that we have to fully analyze is an image of the document. No evidence that anyone other than FactCheck.org has actually physically examined the document. And yet, we’re supposed to simply trust them.
Just like we were “supposed” to trust the Kenyan or Australian Birth Registrations.
And yet, there is no evidence to explain why the dates of the doc and the article are so far apart. Who actually asked for the COLB for Mr. Obama? Where’s the receipt for the transaction? Surely, if the document were legitimate, this kind of evidence would be very easy to come by, especially since FactCheck.org claims that it was the campaign that asked for it.
So many assumptions…
-Phil
Phil says:
Phil, you’re resolve to remain ignorant is stunning. You ask FactCheck what “individuals other than FactCheck” have seen?
FactCheck checked the facts themselves; they did not realy on what others have seen. They showed up to see the actual birth certificate, and they held it, and photographed it, and reported on it. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
brygenon,
Dude. Think for a minute before you go off on what I said. They are the only ones that anyone knows who have actually handled the piece of paper purported to be Mr. Obama’s COLB.
This would be the equivalent of Dr. Orly Taitz actually having a piece of paper that purports to be a Kenyan Birth Registration form and making everyone take her word for it that an image is sufficient for anyone to analyze.
-Phil
Phil says:
If you think my quip there was bad, compare it to what arch-conservative Obama-foe Ann Coulter said about you guys: “There’s nothing to it. So for CNN or MSNBC or you, Geraldo, the liberal on Fox, to be bringing this out as if it’s an issue — you know it’s just a few cranks out there — it’s like when networks bring on the three remaining klanners in America on T.V.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBwMJO9-pG0
It’s an observation, but not a point. Had to be some age.
We have the scan from Obama’s campaign, the FactCheck article, complete with their own photographs, contemporaneous birth announcements in two papers, and confirmation from the director of the Hawaii Department of Health that she checked state records and President Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet Phil, you still spread these lies.
So far apart? The doc was a year and two months old. Had to some age.
JeffM says:
August 10, 2009 at 1:48 pm
1. The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT hasn’t provided sufficient proof that the forged Hawaiian COLB is indeed genuine.
2. The KENYAN GOVERNMENT hasn’t provided sufficient proof that the forged Kenyan CCRB is indeed a fake.
_______________________________________________________________
Actually the State of HI has provided the proof that the COLB is genuine. I guess you keep forgetting the statement of the director of vital statistics stating that the President was born in Honolulu. Nothing has been submitted to refute that. The COLB has the proper seal and signature. The so called Kenyan BC was proven to be a fake. Orly never had the actual document and the person that forged it admitted it. And no qualified individual has stated that the HI COLB was a forgery. You show your opinion by your statement when you called the HI COLB a forgery without any supporting proof. It is up to the people that claim that the President and the state of HI is lying to prove that they are.
observer says:
August 10, 2009 at 10:49 am
That other “twist”:
The Globe also quotes Canadian broadcaster Brian Barron as saying Obama’s mother gave birth to the child in Vancouver, Canada, before transferring as a student to the University of Washington in Seattle.
_________________________________________________________________
Does the article provide any evidence? Of course not. And WND is now quoting the Globe, that supermarket magazine that believes in aliens? That is pretty low even for WND. But since they have authenticated the HI COLB, I would think that the Canada story is probably false.
“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://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:HPBNGZ-sc4cJ:www.wnd.com/index.php%3FpageId%3D73214+http://www.wnd.com/index.php%3Ffa%3DPAGE.view%26pageId%3D73214&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
“The bill’s original sponsor, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida, is out of the country but sent this e-mail: ‘I do not have a copy of my certificate handy, because there is no constitutional requirement for it.’ He says he’d authorize us to get it from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, though, and will present a certified copy if he ever runs for president.”
Posey presumably will run for re-election to Congress. Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets the eligibility requirements to be elected to the House of Representatives:
(1) be at least twenty-five years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.
To date, “Representative” Posey has failed to demonstrate his eligibility to serve in Congress.
“As far as I know,” “Representative” Posey is a U.S. citizen, and at least 25 years old. But why won’t he just spend $15 to release his birth certificate, to clarify this matter? “Representative” Posey has released absolutely zero evidence that substantiates his eligibility regarding his congressional office.
Since there currently is no law that legally enforces the congressional eligibility clause in the constitution, and since there is subsequently no law that dictates the degree to which any available information is “enough” to substantiate eligibility, we are practically left nowhere.
Phil said:
“This would be the equivalent of Dr. Orly Taitz actually having a piece of paper that purports to be a Kenyan Birth Registration form and making everyone take her word for it that an image is sufficient for anyone to analyze.”
Hardly – Orly has a well-documented history of lies, distortion and just plain stupidity. Factcheck has a respected reputation as an independent factchecker – or are you know going to dispute that? If so, could we see your evidence?
Phil also seems suspicious that the Obama campaign requested a COLB in 2007, but did not make it public until 2008. Is not the simplest explanation that it was requested in 2007 so that it could be presented as evidence of eligibility for the forthcoming campaign – just as you demand it should have been? Why this should add to your paranoia is baffling.
Phil wrote:
The Obama campaign get a scan of the doc on-line without handling it? How are we supposed to make sense of that, Phil?
Obama and his campaign staff obtained the birth certificate. While they certainly have a far better reputation for honesty than Orly Taitz, there’s no question that they are partisan, so to further help fight the smears they invited reporters to inspect and photograph the document. The University of Pennsylvania’s non-partisan Annenberg Political FactCheck staff did just that. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
You are free to theorize that FactCheck is part a conspiracy to destroy the constitution. Orly Taitz has lied to you over and over, and just got punk’d with an obviously fake document, but you are free to trust her as much as you like. I’m fascinated by such fringe thinking, and have made rather a hobby of studying it.
brygenon,
Ms. Coulter isn’t commenting on my site; you are.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Would you mind pointing out exactly where the State of Hawaii Department of Health has ever said that the FactCheck.org’s COLB is genuine?
-Phil
Bob,
Copying my verbiage, eh?
-Phil
brygenon,
I think you might be swerving towards the truth on this one.
I have never suggested that FactCheck.org is necessarily a part of a conspiracy, per se; I’m still awaiting their response to an email inquiry I sent to them regarding this very issue (it’s usually best to simply ask the source themselves for an answer).
I am, however, suggesting that there is precious little evidence that shows who actually procured the piece of paper and that there were any other third parties who were able to investigate the piece of paper.
Sorry. I don’t trust anything I see on the Internet unless there’s something that I already know to be true that corroborates it.
-Phil
Phil says:
August 11, 2009 at 8:55 am
Black Lion,
Actually the State of HI has provided the proof that the COLB is genuine.
Would you mind pointing out exactly where the State of Hawaii Department of Health has ever said that the FactCheck.org’s COLB is genuine?
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
That would be when Dr. Fukino stated the following regarding President Obama…
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
She states the President was born in HI. The COLB states that he was born in HI. That is indirect proof that the COLB is genuine because she is stating the same thing that the COLB does.
Copying my verbiage, eh?
Yes, to prove a point:
Not only has no president ever substantiated his eligibility, no member of the present Congress (including the sponsors of H.R. 1503 ) has done so either.
Over the life of the United States, literally thousands of people have served this country at the highest level without first proving their eligibility to do so.
And despite this “uncertainty” in its leaders, the republic has survived for over 200 years.
Black Lion,
OK. Please keep in mind that you’re essentially confirming the fact that the HI DoH is not commenting on any publicly-available documentation regarding Mr. Obama.
-Phil
Dr. Phil…
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Given to the St. Petersburg Times and Politico, and published on June 27, 2008. But acknowledging that would destroy your whole case, so why don’t you just ignore it, like you usually do.
–Dunst
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Dr. Fukino SUNK you with that statement. Outside of Birtherstan you have to contend with that clear satement of factt from the legal agency with the vital records. No responsible journalist would miss that statement.
In a court room the DoH would MELT your case in a minute. She confirmed the facts in question and verified the source in a single sentence. All atempts to parse that are pointless. It was likley written by lawyer at the DoH with precision to be irreducible. (No I can’t prove that but lawyers write or review such statements at most organizations.)
The statement confirms exactly what the COLB states and is what the state would repeat in court. There is nothng more to it. The DoH slamed the door on the birthers for good as far as Hawaii is concerned. They have debunked EVERY claim you have made – 100%.
1. Just what part of “born in Hawaii” is unclear?
2. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Put up or shut up.
dunstvangeet,
No, not a doctor; just a concerned citizen whose questions apparently bother you so much that it draws the condescension like flies to honey from individuals such as yourself.
But I digress….
While I am glad that the folks at PolitiFact or wherever decided to email an image to the HI DoH, that still doesn’t get to the fundamental question of analyzing the physical document.
And that — the scrutinizing of the physical piece of paper as well as the documentation to which the COLB points — is one of the two main points about Mr. Obama’s origins.
-Phil
DCA,
Now that I’ve had a chance to think through some things (I’m not very good at thinking quickly on my feet unless I’m really familiar with the material at hand), consider the following:
Dr. Fukino was not referring to any publicly-available records at all; she was referring to what she has on hand.
We do not know what she has on hand, because none of Mr. Obama’s vital records (I’m speaking of the physical documentation or copies thereof) has actually been released to the public.
Therefore, to suggest that Dr. Fukino was specifically and directly referring to any document or image thereof outside the auspices of the HI DoH is being very disingenuous.
-Phil
Phil said: Therefore, to suggest that Dr. Fukino was specifically and directly referring to any document or image thereof outside the auspices of the HI DoH is being very disingenuous.
How often are these goalposts going to move? What is so difficult to understand about Dr Fukino verifying that the information HI has on file confirms he was born in HI? NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. You can debate scans, photocopies, long forms and fakes as much as you like – it matters not one jot. Obama was born in HI, and to dispute that, you must believe that the Hawaiian official with the statutory duty to maintain Obama’s records of birth is lying. Do you believe that? There is no other issue here – is she lying or not?
Everything else is a birther smokescreen. You are never going to hold the original document in your hand, so you must trust somebody to tell you what is on that document. Can you please suggest a better candidate to tell you that than Dr Fukino? Unfortunately for you, the law recognizes Dr Fukino’s authority to do so, so no case disputing the facts will ever succeed.
Amuse yourself with all the distractions you like – did Stanley register for courses in WA on a certain date, did some twins have a birth registration earlier or later than Obama, which investigator at Factcheck held the document…… don’t you see how none of this can possibly undermine Dr Fukino’s statement?
So why don’t you just come out with it, and tell us whether you believe she is lying or not.
Well let’s see. The Hawaii DoH handles birth records.
Dr. Fukino said she had seen the VITAL RECORDS in question and verified the FACT that Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii.
You STILL have not answered the questions.
1. Just what part of “born in Hawaii” is unclear?
2. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Be specific.
bystander,
I think I’ve already very clearly and plainly stated my position both here on my site and on “Reality Check’s” Land of the Obots show:
No, I do not believe that Dr. Fukino is lying. I think that she’s operating on the documentation — whatever that documentation is — that she has on file in the Health Department. Furthermore, there has never been a direct association between her remarks and any image of a document that is publicly available on the Internet. I’m not really sure how all of this is “moving the goalposts” to say what I’ve just said; it should be pretty obvious that she was only ever speaking about the currently publicly unavailable documentation that she has on hand.
Now, I’d love for your wish of putting Dr. Fukino on the stand about all of this; reasonable cross-examination would then avail themselves of the opportunity to ask her to prove the basis of her claims.
-Phil
Phil: Now, I’d love for your wish of putting Dr. Fukino on the stand about all of this; reasonable cross-examination would then avail themselves of the opportunity to ask her to prove the basis of her claims.
You know that is never, ever going to happen. You know that the COLB will be accepted on its face as proof of Hawaiian birth in accordance with the FRE. But you have moved the goalposts, because you are now implying that HI may have false information in their vital records, and you do not accept the testimony of state officials as they may somehow have been duped. Presumably you would similarly doubt a Long Form should it be released, and then what would you require to see after that? Testimony of a midwife or doctor wouldn’t do, because it was so long ago, and anyway, they would be Obots, just like Linda Lingle and all the other republican that run HI.
Why don’t you admit there is nothing Obama or any official could say that would stop you questioning his status?
You STILL have not answered the questions.
1. Just what part of “born in Hawaii” is unclear?
2. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Be specific. Dr. Fukino SPECIFICALLY confirmed that Pres. Obama was born IN Hawaii. “Born in Hawaii” means not born anywhere else (including NOT in Kenya).
Her conclusion is based on the VITAL RECORDS that were used to create the Hawaii COLBs – that are considered Prima Facie evidence.
The DoH’s COLB is accepted by every court in the United States (other than those in birtherstan). The DoH COLB is all the evidence required.
bystander,
Why don’t you admit that you’re at least as opinionated and stubborn as I am and all that you’re really trying to do is harass me on my web site?
-Phil
Why don’t you admit that you’re at least as opinionated and stubborn as I am and all that you’re really trying to do is harass me on my web site?
There’s a big difference between us Phil – I change my mind when the evidence contradicts my views. When the evidence contradicts yours, you just ignore it or look for wriggle room. And I think the majority of the harassing on the web and in the real world is being done by the birthers.
bystander,
To date, I haven’t seen even scans of the physical HI COLB. I’ve seen no original documentation concerning this President’s background, yet I reasonably know it exists.
If you think that the President is eligible for the office of the presidency, then good on you. I am not convinced either way at this point.
And yes, there is wiggle room with any perspective, especially in this case, as things aren’t quite as cut-and-dried as, say, gravity’s existence.
-Phil
I said, “He’s entitled to his opinion,”
Sue said, “Bingo. This is just a reporters “opinion” with no factual evidence whatsoever to back up his opinion. No matter how the birthers continue to try to spin this, the actual facts speak for themselves. Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, eligible to be President of the United States. Oh wait, he’s not just elibible to be President, he IS the President of the United States.”
I also said that Newsmax has “reporters” of all different persuasions, which is why I said Kessler is entitled to his opinion. If you read the article linked by Black Lion, you’ll see very few “facts” that Kessler independently discovered or reported. His story is nothing more than a compilation of what’s been “reported” previously, in many cases misreported, combined with Kessler’s opinions. But such IS journalism these days, as Sharon 2 has pointed out.
You do know that Dick Morris and Pamela Geller also report at Newsmax, don’t you? I suppose you agree with everything they have to say, as well as with Kessler.
[...] Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released [...]
[...] Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released [...]
[...] the face of it, this admission would go along with Newsmax.com’s story that I reported on, here, in which the conservative-leaning news site specifically contacted the Hawaii Department of Health [...]
[...] Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released [...]
[...] Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released [...]
[...] Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released [...]
[...] Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released [...]