While TheRightSideOfLife.com domain has been and will continue to be a blog site devoted to commentary and opposition thoughts regarding such issues as eligibility, I have decided to branch out to a headline-oriented, single-page site:
This site will cover eligibility, States’ rights, tea parties, and various other stories of interest to myself and other readers. Since it is a single-page site, it will also be dramatically quicker to load into virtually any web browser and will be updated far more frequently than this blog will be.
News.TheRightSideOfLife.com won’t contain commentary like a blog, because it’s not a blog. In fact, as links historically “decay,” they will be archived over at NewsArchive.TheRightSideOfLife.com, so nothing will be “lost” from the one-pager site.
The second advantage to this site is my ability to create web documents for numerous emails I receive from concerned citizens. I’ve received many of these types of emails over the past year and haven’t been able to create blog postings on most, simply because I like giving as much due diligence as possible to everything I post.
Towards the bottom of the right column is a free-form text field where completely anonymous notes can be sent to me (there’s a “Thank You” page produced after “tips” are sent confirming that I record nothing from whatever web browser is sending the note).
Thanks again for everyone’s readership!
Oh, yes, and one more thing: I think you’ll love my main headliner article on the news site. Sky News is reporting that the “paper copy” of Obama’s birth was destroyed by fire. Go to News.TheRightSideOfLife.com for my “flashback” quotes that seem to contradict this claim by a major news organization.
A few days ago, I had reported that Hawaii State Senator Will Espero had introduced two bills in his State’s legislature designed to deal with questions regarding Mr. Obama’s vital documentation. I also referenced a HonoluluAdvertiser.com article wherein the Department of Health’s spokeswoman, Janice Okubo, seemed exasperated over having to deal with approximately a “dozen” persistent requests for departmental records.
Apparently her job is about to get even more interesting.
The Post & Email today announced that they have begun sending out petitions demanding full disclosure of Mr. Obama’s background documentation, including all “government documents pertaining to the preparation of the public statements made” by the Hawaiian Director of Public Health.
On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, made an unprovoked public statement about Barack Hussein Obama’s birth and citizenship status. Since that time, neither she nor the Health Department has released any meaningful “index data” to substantiate the claim that Obama is a “natural born American citizen.”
While birth certificates are protected by privacy laws in the state of Hawaii, the Uniform Information Practices Act, Section 92-F12, mandates that “(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” must be released upon request. Therefore, when Dr. Fukino voluntarily made her public statement regarding Obama’s status, her department became obligated to release the backup information used to prepare it. To date, Hawaiian officials have refused to provide any correlating evidence used to craft Dr. Fukino’s public statement.
Obama himself has acknowledged that many have questioned his citizenship. However, on his first full day in office, he signed an Executive Order barring the release of his personal records. Never in American history has this been done by a sitting president.
According to the donation page for the petition, the site is intending to send a copy “to Hawaii Governor Linga Lingle (R), to the HI Lt. Gov. James Aiona (R), to the HI Director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (R); and to each member of the HI State legislature: in all, more than 90 governmental officials.”
Barack Obama, however, claims as his father, Barrack Obama, Sr., a man who was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1961. He makes this claim in his book, Dreams from My Father, and via the release of an electronic image of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. If such is the case, he cannot legitimately hold the U.S. Presidency.
As I am sure you will readily admit, it is patently absurd for the United States of America and its citizens to rely upon electronic images of alleged government documents, while the general public is refused an opportunity to inspect such documents. Such a manner of acting violates all that America represents and everything which our Founding Fathers fought and died for in the American Revolution. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our government by nature must be open and transparent.
The State of Hawai’i echoes this long tradition of freedom when in its Uniform Information Practices Act it states (92F-2):
…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible. [emphases original]
As I had mentioned in my previous posting, there currently is no Hawaiian State law that bars any individual (or groups of individuals) from petitioning the State government for records, despite whatever statements that officials make in an attempt to quell such questions.
In fact, as I’ve been promulgating for over a year, it is the responsibility and obligation of the common citizen to petition their governing authorities by any means legally allowed to ascertain data and information they deem required to fulfill the obligation of citizenship.
To this end, an absolutely fantastic and exhaustive “eligibility primer” has recently been updated by Stephen Tonchen. Aside from bringing the update to your attention and in light of the above-referenced State-bound petition, I think it would be worthwhile to pull a few small excerpts from the lengthy primer update:
1. What is a “Birther”?
News commentators and Internet bloggers sometimes use the word “Birther” as a term of derision and contempt towards people who question Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “birther” as:
a conspiracy theorist who challenges President Obama’s U.S. birth certificate.
Despite the word’s demeaning connotation, some Obama eligibility questioners have adopted the “Birther” label. See, for example, birthers.org.
This Primer defines “Birther” as anyone who has a fact-based reason to suspect that the circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth — for example, his British/Kenyan citizenship at birth — are not consistent with the presidential eligibility requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This definition of “Birther” is based, in part, on a commentary, titled A Constitutional Crisis is Brewing, published on the Birther website.
As the Birthers, we are pointing out that the conditions of Barack Hussein Obama, II’s birth is [sic] not only important, but critical to the constitutional order of our Nation. (A Constitutional Crisis is Brewing)
Birthers are people who are aware of facts — not mere conjecture or speculation — indicating that Barack Obama’s legal status at birth might disqualify him from serving as president. The President’s circumstances and activities after his birth — his purported adoption and citizenship in Indonesia, his alleged use of a foreign passport, etc. — are of interest, but are not the issues which define who the Birthers are .
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
The following information comes directly from Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982. (FactCheck.org, as quoted in Obama’s “Fight the Smears” webpage regarding his birth certificate, emphasis added).
The above information raises this question:
If Barack Obama was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama meet the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement for presidency?In other words, even if Barack Obama were a U.S. citizen at birth, can he be a U.S. natural born citizen if his citizenship status at birth was “governed”, even if only partially, by the laws of a foreign country?
Obama eligibility supports say “Yes”. They believe there are only two kinds of American citizens: naturalized and natural born. A naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called “naturalization”. A natural born citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and was therefore a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship.
Birthers say “No”. They believe that, when the Constitution was written, the term “natural born citizen” referred to individuals who were, at birth, citizens of the United States only and were not citizens at birth of any other country. Some children are born with dual nationality. They acquire U.S. citizenship at birth; they also acquire foreign citizenship at birth, either from their birthplace or by descent from their parents. Birthers say that, while these children are U.S. citizens, they are not natural born citizens. In order to be a natural born citizen of the United States, you must not be a citizen, at birth, of any foreign country; which means, you must be born in the United States, of parents who were exclusively U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.
Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which one is correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, there was no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.
22. Didn’t the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
On October 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, released this public statement regarding (then Senator) Barack Obama’s birth certificate:
There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, 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 Hawai’i. (Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, October 31, 2008).
On July 27, 2009, Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a second statement:
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. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago. (Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, July 27, 2009)
Based on these two statements, we can safely assume that President Obama’s original birth records, which are on file in Hawaii, say that he was born in Hawaii.
Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued an original Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii. Act 96 of Laws of the Territory of Hawaii was adopted in 1911. Under this Act, Hawaiian birth certificates were issued only to individuals who were believed to be born in Hawaii:
The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. (pp 127-128, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii)
A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be born in Hawaii. But the 1955 law allowed Hawaii to issue a birth certificate to a child whose actual place of birth was not independently confirmed by a non-family member.
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver's license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ’60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii. (Western Journalism, Investigator’s June 10 Report)
If a birth certificate is based solely on a parent’s or relative’s uncorroborated statement, and such a birth certificate is presented as evidence to a court or agency, the court or agency must determine, for itself, the birth certificate’s probative value:
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). (Hawaii Birth Records Law)
At the time of this writing, we are not aware of any law that was in effect in Hawaii in 1961, which allowed the Hawaii Department of Health to knowingly issue Hawaiian birth certificates to babies born outside of Hawaii. Hawaiian Statute 338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, allowed Hawaiian birth certificates to be issued to foreign-born children of Hawaii-resident parents. But Statute 338-17.8 was not enacted until 1982, well after Barack Obama was born.
During the early ’60s, whenever a birth was registered in Hawaii, the Department of Vital Statistics automatically generated a birth announcement and sent it to the local newspapers for publication. Obama’s birth announcement appeared in both:
This birth announcement indicates that Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii in August of 1961.
Nevertheless, a question remains. When Barack Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii, who or what was the source of Obama’s birth information? Was it a hospital? A doctor? A midwife? Or was it based solely on a parent’s or relative’s statement?
If Obama’s birth registration was based solely on a parent’s or relative’s statement, and such statement was not independently corroborated by someone other than an immediate family member, we must do some further research before we can say anything for sure, one way or the other, about the circumstances of the President’s birth.
23. Doesn’t the mere existence of Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth registration prove that he was born in Hawaii?
Barack Obama’s birth registration, by its mere existence, indicates that the State of Hawaii believed (or at least did not disbelieve) that he was born in Hawaii. His birth registration wouldprove that he was born in Hawaii only if his birth in Hawaii was witnessed or confirmed by someone other than an immediate family member. For example:
If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional’s name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama’s birth took place in Hawaii.
If Barack Obama was born at home and his birth was not attended by a doctor or midwife, his birth certificate would show the name of the doctor who examined the baby shortly after its birth. The name and signature of the doctor who did the postnatal examination would confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But consider this hypothetical scenario: Suppose Stanley Ann Obama (President Obama’s mother) had been a resident of Hawaii since June 1960. Suppose that, in November or December 1960, upon learning of her pregnancy, she received prenatal care from a local doctor in Hawaii. Suppose that, on Tuesday August 8, 1961, Madelyn Dunham (Stanley Ann’s mother, also President Obama’s maternal grandmother) walked into the Hawaii Department of Health office, and registered the “unattended” birth of her teenage daughter’s son. (A birth is “unattended” if it did not take place in a hospital, and was not attended by a doctor or midwife). Supposed Madelyn told a health department worker that her daughter, Stanley Ann, had given birth, at home, on Friday evening, August 4, 1961. Suppose Madelyn also said that only she and Stanley Ann were present during the delivery.
Suppose Madelyn was able to provide the Department of Health with the following documentation:
Madelyn’s written statement saying that Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii
Proof that she (Madelyn) had been a resident of Hawaii for more than a year
Proof that her daughter (Stanley Ann) had been a Hawaii resident for more than a year
Proof that Stanley Ann had received prenatal care while in Hawaii
Proof that the baby’s mother (Stanley Ann) and father (Barack Obama Sr.) were married at the time of the baby’s birth
An acknowledgment by Barack Obama Sr. that he was the biological father of the child
Given the above information, the Hawaii Department of Health — under the laws in effect in 1961 – might have issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to Barack Obama II, even though no one outside of his immediate family had actually witnessed or confirmed his birth in Hawaii. (Western Journalism, June 10 Report).
If the above scenario had actually occurred, it is possible that Barack Obama might have been born outside of Hawaii, and Madelyn Dunham merely registered Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii, as an “unattended” birth .
In the absence of an original long-form birth certificate, such a possibility, however implausible or far fetched, cannot be entirely ruled out. Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship — birth within the United States.
25. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the Birthers’ understanding of American history, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen (See Question 8).
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.
26. Aren’t Obama eligibility challenges merely partisan attacks by Republicans against a Democratic president?
The first eligibility lawsuit against Barack Obama was filed by Phil Berg, a lifelong Democrat.
In Donofrio v. Wells (October 2008), the plaintiff sought to remove three presidential candidates from the New Jersey ballot during the 2008 presidential election: Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Republican candidate John McCain, and Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. All three had acquired foreign citizenship at birth.
Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. At the time of his presidential candidacy, he was not a U.S. citizen.
The Republican Party has a history of accommodating presidential candidates whose Constitutional eligibility is uncertain.
Chester Arthur — America’s first post-1787-born president whose parents were not both U.S. citizens — was a Republican.
George Romney ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968. He was born in Mexico.
Barry Goldwater was born (in 1909) in Phoenix, when Arizona was still territory, not yet a state.
Lowell Weicker entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France.
John McCain was born in Panama, not the Panama Canal Zone as is widely believed. But regardless of whether he was born in the Panama Canal Zone or in Panama itself, he was, in either case, a Panamanian citizen at birth.
Yet, for this blogger, while the former Governor was certainly a headline-maker, WorldNetDaily Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah proverbially raised the stakes yet higher regarding the eligibility issue. Here’s the C-SPAN video of his speech; he begins talking about eligibility at approximately the 25 minute mark.
After the speech, things got even more interesting, as good ol’ lefty David Weigel at the WashingtonIndependent reported Mr. Farah and Andrew Breitbart (of BigGovernment.com fame) were in disagreement over the whole eligibility issue (an audio clip of the conversation is available at the link):
“Andrew is my friend,” said Farah. “He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he’s dumb enough to do that…”
Breitbart raised his eyebrows. “I’m dumb to do what?”
“Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper.”
“I was talking to her,” said Breitbart, pointing to Schilling. “I was talking to you. And I was saying that I disagreed on the birther stuff.”
“OK, well, did you know that Dave Weigel from The Washington Independent was”–
“I was talking to [WorldNetDaily's Chelsea Schilling],” said Breitbart. “She was asking me if I thought it was wise to bring it up, and I said, no. We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument. That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold. The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance. And to apply to this group of people the concept that they’re all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it’s not a winning issue–”
“It is a winning issue!”
“It’s not a winning issue.”
“It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility–”
“You don’t recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order.”
“Nothing exposes the president’s–”
“Then prove it!”
“The press isn’t asking the question–”
“Prove your case.”
“I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”
Breitbart tensed up after that insult. “Right.”
“I know you’re not a journalist, so that’s fine. But don’t diminish people who’ve been doing this for 35 years.”
“So you’re going to go on record saying that I’m not a journalist?”
“Are you? I’ve never heard you claim to be. Are you?”
“I’ll let it be answered by you.”
“Well, I knew Drudge didn’t consider himself a journalist, so I assumed that you were. … I don’t know, I’m not trying to insult you.”
At that point, Judson Phillips — who had spotted a very small crowd around us — walked into the fray and tried to simmer everyone down with a joke.
“I can give you absolutely conclusive and definitive proof that Obama’s birth certificate does not exist. How else do you explain why Joe Biden is vice president?”
That more or less ended the conversation — Farah moved on, and agreed to talk more about why he and WorldNetDaily continued to pursue stories on Obama’s citizenship. The citizenship issue had stuck around and taken off, he said, “because of us.” He ran stories asking questions about the issue — including stories that were quickly debunked — because the rest of the media wasn’t asking the questions.
“Do you think this has made my life easier, doing this?” asked Farah. “I used to be on TV all the time. I haven’t been on Fox News once since I started talking about this.”
Asked whether he thought his speech created any problems for Sarah Palin — prompting reporters to ask why she patronized a convention with rhetoric like this — Farah rejected the premise.
“Sarah Palin is a big girl,” he said. “She can take care of herself. I have a lot of confidence that she’ll take care of herself well. … My objective is not to get Sarah Palin elected or something. My job as a journalist is to seek the truth.”
For me, Mr. Breitbart’s conundrum, above, is really simple to deal with:
No actual reporters have ever actually questioned this President over his birth or childhood, save WND’s Les Kinsolving;
Asking Mr. Obama to produce his birth certificate — he already freely admits to being a British citizen at birth — is neither unlawful nor extraordinary; there’s simply no law that exists that requires Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution to be enforced;
Those of us who question this President’s bona fides are fully capable of multi-tasking over multiple topics (meaning that while eligibility is not currently a top issue under discussion, it is among several that are able to be considered at once)
Since when did questions about a President’s history become so taboo?
At one level, Obama and his supporters have played the “Birther” issue brilliantly. By refusing to release his birth certificate and by equating a demand that Obama release his birth certificate with being a racist, Obama has created the single most toxic charge that can be leveled in current politics.
The Birther card is the new race card, trotted out under strained circumstances in an attempt to discredit political opponents.
We saw this tactic directed by prominent left-wing bloggers against Scott Brown based on demonstrably false factual premises. Brown never questioned whether Obama was born in Hawaii, never raised the issue, and never spoke about the issue, yet was accused of being a Birther.
The use of the Birther card is uni-directional. When Andrew Sullivan wrote that Obama should release his birth certificate, he was not subjected to the type of venom from the left as others and was not excommunicated. There is a principled position that anyone who aspires to a constitutional office should prove with the best evidence available that he or she satisfies the constitutional requirements. But since this test has not been applied prior to Obama, raising such an issue leaves one open to charges of racism.
(Added: While other candidates, including John McCain, have had their constitutional qualification questioned, in McCain’s case because he was born in the Panama canal zone, the documentation or level of proof never before has been the issue, as far as I am aware) …
It is a strategy which is foolish because it conflates those who question Obama’s citizenship (a relatively small percentage of the population) with those who question his policies (a relatively large percentage of the population), but it is the Democratic strategy. …
In additional to pissing off (how’s that for an analytical term?) people who question Obama’s policies, the use of the Birther card has not resolved anything. Questions about Obama’s birth, whether real or imagined, merely have been driven underground rather than being refuted. …
The Birther issue may not be the reason why 40% of the population questioned whether Obama loved America (and there would be no logic to it anyway, since one does not need to be born here to love America). But there is no denying that the issue is hanging out there under the surface.
When even Obama feels compelled equate those who question his policies with those who question his citizenship, as Obama did the other day, it is a sign that the issue has not gone away and is eating away at the Obama presidency.
By using the Birther accusation as a political tool to be used against opponents regardless of circumstances, Obama and his supporters have won the battle, but they are losing the war.
And I think Obama and his supporters know it, but they are unable to do anything about it because they have painted themselves into a political corner.
As always, the Professor is well-spoken on the politics of the “birther” issue.
And to round out the posting, “Pixel Patriot” and The Post & Email’s Sharon Rondeau bring the following news concerning Georgia GOP gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Nathan Deal and his letter to the President:
On February 6, 2010, Carl Swensson, Republican Precinct Captain for Morrow, GA, interviewed Deal for about five minutes, during which he asked about the letter. Deal, who currently represents the 9th congressional district of Georgia, is running for that state’s governor. The interview took place at the “Faith, Family and Freedom Kickoff” at Riverside High School in Atlanta, GA on Saturday. …
When Swensson asked Deal if he had received a response, Deal replied that he has not.
Deal states on camera that he is not questioning Obama’s legitimacy for the presidency but is requesting a source of verifiable information for his constituents who have questions about it.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
At shortly after 5:00pm ET today, Lt. Col. Scott Brown formally became Senator Scott Brown from the great State of Massachusetts (maybe now I can stop saying, “Tax-a-chusetts”).
HotAir.com posted the following from his swearing in and his first official press conference as Senator:
Thus endeth the supermajority. Two clips for you, one of the ceremony itself and the other of Scotty B’s presser immediately afterwards, at which budget deficits and terrorism are mentioned as top priorities. (Note the call for a “JFK-style tax cut.”) Of note: At around 4:30 of the C-SPAN clip, he hedges on “don’t ask, don’t tell” by saying he wants to talk to some generals before deciding, and at 5:45 he insists that the stimulus didn’t create a single new job. Expect that to be the subject of the Dems’ first statement about him. Possible title: “Why does Scott Brown hate education conferences?“
Once again, congratulations, Senator. We’ll all be here to help hold you accountable.
See my highlighted coverage under the Category, MA Senate.
Yesterday, the Arizona House Committee on Government, chaired by Rep. Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley), voted to pass her introduced bill, HB2441, by a vote of 6-1 (with two Members absent). My original posting on this story contains the actual bill; in summary, the following is what the bill proposes to do:
HB 2441 provides a procedure for determining a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office.
United States Constitution prescribes all powers, rights and limitations to the executive branch of the federal government, stating “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The Constitution further prescribes the manner for the election of the President and establishes the individual eligibility requirements for the office of the President. The requirements includes that the individual be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old and have been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years (United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1).
Requires that written notice from a national political party committee for a presidential candidate that is entitled to representation on the ballot be sent to the Arizona Secretary of State (Secretary), that contains the party’s nomination of candidates for president and vice-president.
States that within 10 days of the submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate which states the candidate’s citizenship and age.
Stipulates that presidential candidate affidavit include documents that prove:
Ø That the candidate is a natural born citizen.
Ø That the candidate’s age.
Ø That the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in the United States Constitution.
States that the Secretary shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot if upon review of the affidavit and other documents submitted pursuant to this Act, the Secretary believes the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.
This appears to be quite controversial for many of our fellow opposite party members. I don’t quite understand why they have such heart burn over a Constitutional issue such as this. As state legislators, when we run for office we self attest that we meet all of the requirements to run for state office. When our children sign up for sports, they must show a birth certificate. When an individual goes for a job interview, they must take their birth certificate because an e-verify check is required, we need a birth certificate to obtain a passport. This is the highest office in the land. Our Constitution clearly defines the qualifications to run for this office. How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?
This has been such a controversial issue that it needs to be addressed. If not at the state level, where? Several states such as Montana and Oklahoma have taken steps similar to Arizona’s legislation.
As longtime readers will note, I have been advocating actions such as this at the State level regarding eligibility enforcement for a long time. In fact, as AZStarNet reported, Rep. Burges is correct about several States looking at such bills. She responds to a lobbyist for the State’s Secretary of State who had this to say:
Matt Benson, lobbyist for Secretary of State Ken Bennett, said there are all sorts of problems with HB 2441 which now goes to the full House.
First, he said it likely would bring a challenge that Arizona was illegally imposing its own standards on candidates for federal offices. Benson noted that federal courts previously struck down an attempt by Arizona to limit the terms of members of Congress.
Burges responded that 10 other states are considering similar proposals. “So it’s not just Arizona,” she said.
Benson pointed out, though, that what Burges wants isn’t a simple matter of someone coming up with a birth certificate. It requires the secretary of state to examine documents proving eligibility and refuse to list that person on the ballot if there is “reasonable cause to believe the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.”
He said that provides no clear guideline for his agency to determine if, for example, a copy of a birth certificate is legally sufficient.
Mr. Benson, with all due respect, sir, you’re ignorant of the law (as are many opposition commenters on this site). HB2441 in no way establishes new guidelines for presidential eligibility; it goes about enforcing laws that already exist. Furthermore, regarding the assertion that somehow this issue is tied to issues like term limits, I would invite everyone to click on the link to which I refer to my previous posting (top of this post) wherein I specifically go over how US Term Limits v. Thornton actually gives States plenty of leeway in determining the manner in which elections are held, to wit (from the Supreme Court opinion):
Moreover, petitioners’ broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers’ view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office. [emphasis added]
If you read the entire opinion from my posting, you will see that the opinion is correctly addressing the issue that States cannot impose new qualifications on candidates. Rather, and again, they have every right to impose those processes and procedures that enforce existing law.
Mr. Benson does have a point, however, with respect to admitting that there is no controlling legal authority that determines what — and to what extent — that said enforcement is to go. Perhaps this is why the bill purposefully leaves out that kind of scope: the bill makes it incumbent upon the SoS to make the determination.
So, the question would be the following: If every major political party must submit a candidate qualification form to every State’s Secretary of State (or Commonwealth) wherein the candidate merely says that they’re qualified, how is it now that the respective SoS determines whether or not such a document is legitimate? Would you believe that most SoS’s rely upon the party apparatus to make this determination?
Quoting from Yahoo! News, since the bill’s next step is the full House, its passage is a real possibility:
A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. …
All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.
Of course, some politicos in the great State of Arizona are less than thrilled about such questions, including one incumbent Senator, John McCain.
CBSNews.com reported today that his campaign has devoted resources towards this over-a-minute-long ad against former GOP Rep. and radio talk show host J.D. Hayworth, Mr. McCain’s main challenge in the State’s primary:
Mr. Hayworth’s spokesman retorted:
Late Wednesday afternoon, Hayworth’s spokesman told Politico that the spot, “Identity,” reflected McCain’s “desperation.”
“I love the smell of 24-year incumbent desperation in the afternoon,” said Jason Rose. “He hears those conservative footsteps a comin’ and knows his political fate, like Gov. Crist, is a matter of time. And he knows full well it was J.D.’s job as a talk-show host to provoke discussion. Questions were raised on the air. They have been answered.”
What’s more, columnist Ann Coulter could even be construed to “get” the eligibility issue, even if only with respect to illegal immigration:
…Obama isn’t stupid – he’s not seriously trying to get a health-care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public “summit” with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health-care thing.
Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.
If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.) [emphasis added] …
On a tip from Lyle Rapacki, Ph.D.: If you ever wanted to have a concise collection of data on President Obama concerning both what we know and what we don’t know about his background, the below YouTube video is for you. While most of the data included in the video is not new, this appears to be the first time that all prominent facts and figures concerning Mr. Obama’s background have been conveniently put together.
Readers will recall that I highlighted Dr. Rapacki’s work on March 25, 2009, when he had released a report on presidential eligibility as a white paper for InfraGard. His personal commentary from a recent email on the video sums up my thoughts as well:
WE THE PEOPLE were ridiculed, even threatened each time we asked to have clarified Mr. Obama’s status insofar as citizenship and background. Our elected representatives told us there was “nothing to the claims.” Senator McCain wouldn’t even raise the issue during his campaign for the Office of the Presidency, even though the same issues were raised on the floor of the Congress about McCain’s citizenship having been born in the Panama Canal Zone. Even conservative commentators, like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity relegate those who raise this issue as “birthers” – a left handed dismissal by more learned and wise individuals with whom we should just take our cues. With the exception of a very few brave souls who have risked their reputation and personal safety, almost anyone with a large arena, a national microphone, or a pen (computer) who can reach the farthest corners of our Nation refuses to stand and force the subject out of the dark closet into the daylight where the details can be seen, and the subject can be decided once and for all!
Where have the Patrick Henrys and John Adams of our generation gone; those brave young Americans sitting in a Contential Congress not afraid to challenge a tyrant King. Who will be the next John Hancock who is NOT afraid to sign his name so large that the King can not miss reading it? The issue remains unsettled. The subject, so many are afraid to touch, will not go away. The topic of being rightfully seated as the duly constituted President of the United States continues to fester, and even appears to still be infected with grave doubt, fear, oozing anger and disdain.
Look below at the YOUTUBE site now making the rounds. Listen to the sobering message, the chilling account, the provocative questions begging to be answered. WE THE PEOPLE want to know what is the truth? What is so wrong with our question? Why are our elected representatives castigating us for asking; for performing by ourselves the due diligence they should have accomplished? Look at the YOUTUBE site below…the issue remains, the questions persist. There is fear that our American political process has been infected, and merely putting a bandaid over the site will not clear the infection. WE THE PEOPLE have asked for help in resolving this challenge. Something is not right, and we don’t feel well at all about this issue.
So, like the patient whose doctor doesn’t listen because afterall, they are the doctor and know better, WE THE PEOPLE will continue to look for another health care provider who will listen and investigate with us the issue at hand. We have to, it is critical, our health and welfare as a nation is at stake.
LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.
Protective Intelligence and Assessment Specialist
Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment
Independent Intelligence and Information Warfare Analyst
Lyle is an independent intelligence analyst who receives and disseminates critical intelligence and policy information from and to law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials and operatives, and government and community leaders. He is the author of dozens of white papers, bulletins and briefings, and he is frequently called on to share his expertise with public and private security directors and organizations.
The video, entitled, “Dossier:”
As always, it cannot be emphasized enough that the vetting process for all political candidates is strictly voluntary and entails little to no legal enforcement — basically an honor system. As FamilySecurityMatters.org pointed out back in September, 2008, “Who Vetted Obama?“
Even more interesting is late news coming out of the great State of Hawaii on a story I covered back in August, 2009 concerning State Senator Will Espero’s promise to introduce legislation concerning vital records (via “butterdzillion” on FreeRepublic):
On Jan 27, 2010 Hawaii State Senator Will Espero has introduced a bill to label some people “vexatious requestors” who can be denied responses from the DOH. This action was taken 2 weeks after I posted “Red Flags in Hawaii”, (see at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ ), a blog post documenting how Hawaii government officials have broken laws and rules in order to cover for Obama.
The Honolulu Advertiser has an article about it. Apparently I can’t post anything from the HA because they won’t allow it, but it’s in an article online today. In it, Okubo claims that she gets about 50 requests/month for Obama’s BC.
First off, I call BS on that number. I requested all the UIPA requests involving Obama for a 2-week period and there were 7 requests – only 2 of which were for a BC, and both for a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate, which the Administrative Rules expressly authorize to be released to anybody who asks for it.
Second, I believe this firmly places us in phase 3 of the saying, “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
“They’re spurred on by these ‘birther’ blogs who direct them to bombard the Health Department even though they have no legitimate right to the information,” [Health Department spokeswoman Janice] Okubo said.
“They’ve been misled to believe that the state of Hawai’i gives out birth information to anyone who requests it, but really our law protects birth information. We’re entrusted with protecting people’s vital records. To open them up would mean opening them up to identity theft and other types of concerns.”
State law allows birth certificates to be issued to family members, legal guard- ians, representatives of a person’s estate, or by court order or other legal purposes.
Okubo said those who have been requesting Obama’s birth certificate don’t meet the legal standards.
Sorry, Ms. Okubo, but some of us already know that certain records are private. What has been requested are certain facts surrounding these documents — but more on this process in a moment.
The article continued:
Rick Newbold, a defense contractor from North Carolina now working in Iraq, asked the Health Department and the White House for Obama’s birth records, in part, because Newbold believes it’s “hypocritical of the president to proclaim that his administration is transparent when it obviously is not,” he wrote in an e-mail to The Advertiser.
“My interest in discovering and defending the truth about our chief executive is to maintain the integrity of the office of the president and to protect our republic from subversion, especially from foreign powers. America is in decline as a result of the globalist mindset and monied interests who seek to destroy America and integrate it into a global system of governance and taxation.”
The continuing issue over Obama’s birthplace — and, therefore, his eligibility to serve as president of the United States — has led state Sen. Will Espero, D-20th, (‘Ewa Beach, Waipahu) to introduce two bills this session on different sides of the issue.
Senate Bill 2056 would open up Hawai’i birth records under strict conditions to people who currently have no legitimate right to see them. Senate Bill 2937 would allow state agencies to label people who persistently “abuse” the public information process as “vexatious requestors,” which would allow state officials to deny their requests for documents.
Espero does not necessarily believe that everyone should see birth certificates that are now restricted, but said he wrote the bills to trigger legislative hearings to discuss the issue.
“It’s all because of the noise about the president not being born here,” Espero said.
“I believe he’s born here. Most of Hawai’i believes he’s born here and it’s not an issue here as it is with these Mainland birthers. It probably would not end all of the controversy because I believe the people that are these birthers have some other motives. Whatever you say or provide to these people, they will not be happy with anything.” …
Attorney Jeff Portnoy, who represents The Advertiser, has made a career out of fighting for public access to government records and believes that county and state officials need to be more open about what they do.
“On paper, the present state laws regarding access are very impressive, both philosophically and technically, in talking about that in a democracy, the public should have access to the workings of government,” Portnoy said. “Practically, the interpretation of those laws leaves a lot to be desired.”
The reality, Portnoy said, is that “Hawai’i has a significant reputation as being a hostile place to obtain records and access and, frankly, a history of executive and legislative leaders who have been fairly hostile, either through their attorney general or corporation counsels or the bureaucracy itself.”
Portnoy understands the desire among some people to see Obama’s birth records, but he does not put their requests in the same category as seeking openness to government dealings, such as details of public works projects or private meetings among officials to decide who will chair city councils, commissions and boards.
“That’s the people’s business,” Portnoy said. “We’ve never brought an action to get somebody’s Social Security number and there are legitimate reasons to keep birth records private. Identity theft is a legitimate, serious issue.”
Then, Ms. Okubo stated the following:
The majority of the people who e-mail or send letters to Okubo asking for Obama’s birth certificate do not challenge her response once she tells them they have no legal right to the information, she said.
But about a dozen people continue to hammer Okubo with follow-up requests.
“They want all of the organizational charts for our Office of Health Status Monitoring that handles vital records and for our health informations systems, our IT office,” Okubo said. “They request from me every single communication or every single document or request every record available related to President Obama’s vital records.”
Okubo readily acknowledges that she hasn’t always been able to reply to a request within 10 working days as required under Hawai’i's Uniform Information Practices Act, the state’s version of the federal Freedom of Information Act.
But she adamantly disagrees with the “birthers’ ” interpretation of Hawai’i law.
“They usually say that by not giving out his birth certificate we’re breaking the law,” Okubo said.
“But we would be breaking the law by giving out a birth certificate to someone who does not have a right to it.”
When Okubo told one writer they did not have a right to Obama’s birth certificate because they were not related to the president, the person wrote back saying they, indeed, had a common ancestor.
“They said they have a tangible right to his birth certificate because they’re descended from Adam,” Okubo said, referring to the biblical figure. “We told them they need to provide some type of legal documentation.”
Frankly, Ms. Okubo, it sounds like you may need a bit of cheese with that whine! This sounds harsh because applications like Microsoft Word and/or Outlook could make your job 75% easier.
You see, all you have to do is create a form letter that could be sent and/or attached via email back to the “illegitimate” requester stating that they cannot request the kind of data they’re requesting (if that’s the case).
So, the real issue is with approximately one dozen concerned citizens asking your office (“hammering,” to the article’s term) for info? Wow. We, the People must be really effective if all it takes is for 12 individuals to cause you to begin griping.
The bottom line is this: we have the government complaining that concerned citizens are making a number of requests of it, when there is no law that disallows such requests to be made. Yet, somehow, we are supposed to be sympathetic to the bureaucrat who appears to be tired of doing her job.
Guess what, Ms. Okubo? It’s not your job to characterize any citizen as a “birther” or any other such label, simply because you dislike the insinuated intention of these requests. Your job is to do your job without respect to person, according to the law; nothing more, nothing less.
Here is the status page for Mr. Espero’s SB2937 concerning “vexatious requests;” here is the actual language of the bill.
And here is the status page for SB2056 concerning birth certificate viewing; here’s the language.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
The entire case against the rejected Chrysler dealers revolved on one simple answer given by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, when he was cross-examined by Dealer Counsel during the hearing to decide the fate of Chrysler. Every other witness testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat requested that Old Chrysler reject the 789 Dealer franchise contracts.
Without a request by the lender (the US Government) or the purchaser (Fiat), there was no sound business judgment in Old Chrysler killing off 789 franchises. This is because when a contract is rejected in bankruptcy, Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code kicks in and gives those rejected dealers an unsecured creditor claim against the estate. In this case, it was undisputed that the claim would potentially reach one billion dollars.
Old Chrysler had a fiduciary duty to its other creditors not to burden the estate with this mammoth claim. However, had a key party sought rejection of those franchise agreements as a condition precedent to the deal closing then the Court might have been justified to approve the rejections. But no party ever testified that the dealer restructuring was a necessary condition precedent to the sale closing.
The New Chrysler management were free to trim the dealership network once they took over. After they owned the company, they could deal with the dealers as they liked and as would have been governed by State franchise laws which protected the dealers. And all of the evidence shows that Fiat was happy to take on the entire dealership network in the sale. The decision to kill off 789 dealerships was entirely the brain collapse of Old Chrysler’s management. Therefore, the issue to be decided by the Court was whether this decision was made in sound business judgment.
The entire dealer rejection issue then turned on whether the rejections were a condition precedent to the sale closing. If it was not a material issue to Fiat, and if Fiat’s executive testified that they were happy to trim the dealership network after the sale closed, then Old Chrysler should not have been allowed to reject the dealer contracts. The Bankruptcy Court – under Section 365(a)of the Bankruptcy Code – must approve the rejections for them to become effective.
Here is the exact testimony by Alfredo Altavilla of Fiat which the case turned on:
Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.
It’s a very straightforward answer. Altavilla clearly testified that whether the dealer restructuring took place after the sale closed made no material difference to Fiat. Clearly, this man and his foreign company were not going to walk away from a deal where the American people paid the ENTIRE 20 plus billion dollar purchase costs just to hand it over to Fiat for free. Zippo nada zilch was paid by Fiat who were therefore in no position to demand 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted. Fiat didn’t make that insane demand and the testimony above clearly shows this to be true.
But Judge Gonzalez decided he was going to usher in a new era ofjudicial ventriloquism by taking on a new role for his soiled robe. Gonzalez understood that the testimony needed for him to approve the rejection of 789 dealers (and loss of some 40,000 jobs) was nowhere to be found in the record of the case. So Judge Gonzalez – through the use of creative footnoting – made up his own testimonyand stuffed it into the mouth of Altavilla alla Edger Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Seriously folks – the metaphor is so very appropriate.
Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.
THE JUDGE GONZALEZ OPINION AT FOOTNOTE 21
21 …Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”
Altavilla never responded to any such question in the affirmative.Never, damn it. This is a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth. Any grammar school child can easily grasp that the witness clearly indicated restructuring was not a material difference to Fiat. And if it was not a material difference to Fiat, 789 dealers and 40,000 jobs could have been saved while your Government gifted this American auto institution to a foreign national conglomerate with your own taxes. That’s it in a nutshell, people.
In our original Motion memorandum we gave Judge Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt and refrained from calling this fraud intentional – opting instead to allege only that the Court’s judicial ventriloquism exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. But on Friday Feb. 5, 2010 Judge Gonzalez denied our Motion by issuing a 25 page Opinion(docket no. 6341 – public docket appears down today) which condoned intentional fraud on the part of Chrysler’s attorneys – Jones Day – who repeated multiple falsehoods in their Response Brief which we thoroughly dismantled in our Reply.
Furthermore, in not correcting the error of Footnote 21, Judge Gonzalez is now also guilty of intentional fraud as well. He’s chosen to defend Footnote 21 and in doing so he is simply lying to the American People which is obvious to any impartial observer of the facts. Footnote 21 is simply a lie by a partial Judge. It’s fraud plain and simple.
The Law Office of Pidgeon & Donofrio (site will soon be updated to include Leo Donofrio’s info) will be appealing to the Southern District of New York and we will be making multiple complaints to the New York Bar asking for sanctions against Jones Day and Judge Gonzalez.
Our lead client, James Anderer has been on Fox Business News about 40 times now and we are hoping to increase public awareness through the media of this fraud. The Chrysler story is only now truly being understood for the fraud against the American way that it is. Please stand with us as this battle is sure to intensify. The disease we are fighting is at the core of the intended destruction of this nation’s natural sovereignty.
Understand that this battle is as important a fight as this nation will ever see. It will define whether we are going to allow the judicial branch to openly lie to our faces. If no court will overturn Gonzalez here, it’s the end of truth, justice and the American way forever. This judicial fraud will become the template for a new tomorrow where your children will have no protection of law.
Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon represent 76 former Chrysler dealers.
In what could be construed by some as a hypocritical question by FoxNews, WorldNetDaily reports today that Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm — interviewed by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” — attempted to justify that her dual citizenship of being born in Canada and holding American citizenship would not disqualify her from being President:
“Your two terms are up at the end of this year. Do you have any interest in moving here to Washington and working in the administration?” he asked.
“Are you offering me a job? No, I …” she said.
“Yes, because I’m a conduit for the Obama White House. Exactly,” Wallace joked.
“No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment,” Granholm said. “December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.”
Wallace then pointed out that she would be unqualified to run, anyway.
“We should point out Gov. Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president,” he said.
Granholm was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada to Shirley Alfreda Dowden and Victor Ivar Granholm. Granholm’s paternal grandfather, who emigrated to Canada in the 1930s, came from Robertsfors, Sweden, where his father was mayor. The Swedish Minister for Enterprise and Energy, Maud Olofsson, lives in Robertsfors and when the two met in Sweden it was revealed that Olofsson’s husband is a relative of Granholm’s.
Granholm’s grandmother was an immigrant from Norway. Granholm’s family immigrated to California when she was four.
Referring again to Stephen Tonchen’s recently-updated primer on Mr. Obama’s eligibility, the President’s citizenship is also open for questioning, albeit along different lines:
President Obama publicly admits that his father was a Kenyan native who never became a U.S. citizen. At birth, President Obama acquired British/Kenyan nationality by descent from his father. Thus, the 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born president whose parents were not both U.S. citizens. Moreover, 2008 was the first time that the U.S. knowingly elected a post-1787-born president who, in addition to being a U.S. citizen, was also a foreign national at birth.
U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents are U.S. citizens by modern-day law, but there is unresolved doubt as to whether such children are Constitutional natural born citizens. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed [at the link, above].
Birthers believe (or at least suspect) that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. They say that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must meet two requirements: abirthplace requirement (you must be born in the United States), and a parental citizenship requirement (both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth).
Birthers make two clarifying points regarding the parental citizenship requirement:
Your parents do not need to be natural born citizens in order for you to be a natural born citizen. They only need to be citizens. It does not matter how your parents became U.S. citizens. They could have acquired their citizenship at birth. They could have, as immigrants, acquired U.S. citizenship through naturalization. At one time in American history, a woman’s citizenship was that of her husband. For you to be a natural born citizen, both of your parents had to be citizens at the time of your birth, but they did not have to benatural born citizens.
All citizens, regardless of the means by which they became citizens, have the same rights. But serving as president is a privilege, not a right. The only difference between natural born citizens and other citizens is that natural born citizens may become president and other citizens may not .
There is some question as to whether President Obama meets the birthplace requirement. Unsubstantiated rumors suggest he might have been born in Kenya . There is also speculation that the President might have been born in Canada .
Far more importantly, Obama publicly acknowledges he does not meet the parental citizenship requirement. His father was a British/Kenyan citizen who never became a U.S. citizen.
As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children. … In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC. (FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?)
Birthers believe, based on their understanding of American and English history, that an individual must be U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. If the Birthers’ understanding is correct, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore not eligible to serve as president.
Dr. Levy is licensed in the US and England as an attorney and solicitor. He is on the faculty at two US graduate schools and instructs courses on Diplomacy and Law. Dr. Levy is considered one of the world’s leading experts on topics such as the Vatican Bank and Exile Governments. He is the author of a book on The Intermarium, a geopolitical plan for east central Europe.
A Scribd copy of the press release can be found via a recent Tweet from Dr. Levy:
American Dissident, Dr. Orly Taitz, Seeks Urgent Action by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Re… http://bit.ly/9YPjlh
I started this blog back on Friday, October 24, 2008 with the simple question: Is Barack Hussein Obamaeligible for the presidency? Of course, as long-time readers have noted, I have since expanded to other topics, but who would have thought that such a simple question would stir such a major controversy?
Then again, in politics, isn’t it true that if there’s no “there” there, why make such a big deal about the question? Some of we bloggers, including myself, post as a hobby and happen to have garnered a fair amount of support from the blogosphere to make such a pursuit worthwhile. If it is merely we who are asking the question, what’s the big deal — why so much consternation over eligibility?
Let’s begin with prominent RedState blogger Erick Erickson, a Macon, GA councilman, lawyer, and someone who has over the past few months been featured on Hannity’s America as well as the mainstream news network CNN (incidentally, I applaud his good fortune in this respect, despite the fact that he’s wrong on eligibility). He posted this initial promise of banning those of us who question the administration, of which I will now dissect:
Today I want to reaffirm and make it more definitive. If you think 9/11 was an inside job or you really want to debate whether or not Barack Obama is an American citizen eligible to be President, RedState is not a place for you.
Birfers and Truthers are not welcome here. Period. End of Story.
But I want to expand on this too.
The tea party movement is in danger of getting a bad reputation for allowing birfers and truthers to share the stage. At the National Tea Party, Joseph Farah treated the birfer issue as legitimate. In Texas, tea party activists have rallied to Debra Medina who, just yesterday, refused to definitely dismiss the 9/11 truther conspiracy as crackpot nonsense. If a candidate cannot do that, we cannot help that candidate. It’s that simple. …[emphasis original]
A “bad reputation” based upon whose perspective? In the art of political war, one only cares about how one’s opponents perceive oneself in terms of “strategery,” not in terms of validation. Please do not confuse these two concepts.
Regarding Ms. Medina, I’ll be getting to the real story on her in a moment. However, being open to different perspectives does not necessarily mean that one agrees with other perspectives. Again, please do not confuse these two concepts.
This sets us up for attacks from the left and from within that we must anticipate. It is one thing to separate ourselves from these individuals and groups. It is quite another to know that these people are among us. We should be careful. All of us have an obligation to vet those who we ally with. Just because someone is stridently against the size of government does not make him an ally if he also believes the U.S. Army blew up the World Trade Center. Such a person brings disrepute on us all, deservedly so.
You did know, Mr. Erickson, that even the chairman of the GOP admits that Mr. Obama was never vetted, yes?
On the other hand, it may not be known that someone is a birfer or truther. We should be willing to show each other good grace and a measure of understanding in dealing with the troublesome fringe. We should also remember it was the Clintonistas who started the birfer rumor and the most vocal truthers live in Hollywood and voted for Obama. That is not, however, an excuse for us to associate with the nuts. …
“Troublesome fringe?” “Nuts?” I see. So the idea that PUMAs, in your view, allegedly started the “birfer” rumor is enough of a reason to say that folks such as myself should be essentially treated as a different class of citizens, merely because you become uncomfortable with the question?
Maybe it’s because you’re not comfortable with entertaining the thought of where the question might take you.
Birfers and Truthers have no place among us. And they are most decidedly not welcome at RedState.
That’s OK, Mr. Erickson. While I’ve changed my own site’s comment policy (more on that, too, in this posting), I do not keep anyone from commenting here — at least as long as they keep things civil.
Of course, things didn’t end there. John Charlton over at The Post & Emailresponded to Mr. Erickson’s editorial decision, to which Mr. Erickson then responded to the response — and said a few things that need to be addressed:
If the supposed chronicler of the birfer movement can look at a website and get the name of the law firm wrong and totally miss the fact that Orly Taitz’s representation of that soldier in Columbus, GA happened in Columbus, GA, what the heck sort of credibility can we trust these people to have with the actual facts?
The “credibility” question could also be asked of you, Mr. Erickson, who appears to be taking out of context and essentially smearing what Ms. Medina had to say about 9/11 “Truthers” (again, more on this shortly).
BOLD FACT FOR THE BIRFERS: The time to raise the question was before the man got elected President and as every single court that has heard it has thrown it out, these people are insane. No federal judge would ever throw out the election of a man who was chosen by FIFTY-ONE PERCENT of the American public. Oh, and Obama was born in Hawaii. [emphases original]
No, Mr. Erickson, here are the facts:
Since there is no statute of limitations on presidential eligibility (incapacity, as it were) per the Constitution or federal statute, the premise of your “timing” issue is wrong. Further, as I’ve already pointed out, GOP chairman Michael Steele has long since admitted that the candidate was never vetted;
Eligibility cases have been “thrown out” of Court on the legitimate technicalities of standing (e.g.: the right of a petitioner to be heard), subject matter jurisdiction (e.g.: does this Court have the authority to answer the question at hand?), whether or not the Court can fulfill the remedy requested for the petitioner (e.g.: removing the President from office), and various other issues. In other words, no courtroom in America has ever heard a singular case on its merits. Further, even Judge Carter’s opinion from Barnett v. Obamashows that there could be “a legitimate role” for the Courts to play with respect to the question of eligibility (from page 25 of the opinion):
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”
Notice that nowhere in his opinion does Judge Carter state that a Joint Session of Congress is the “sole” arbiter of determining eligibility (else why even have a campaign or Electoral College, for that matter?), nor does he ever reference a Supreme Court decision that interprets presidential eligibility;
Also, being a lawyer, Mr. Erickson ought to know that having a case “thrown out” doesn’t necessarily mean that the petitioner(s) is(are) “insane”;
Regarding “throwing out elections,” the underlying question is one of having the Courts impeach the President versus Congress. As I’ve been saying on my site, of course the Courts cannot impeach a President. However, if a Court were to find a President ineligible, it’s still up to Congress to fulfill their Legislative duty of dealing with such a scenario — and deal they could, per the Constitution. Strawman issue completely.
SECOND BOLD FACT FOR THE BIRFERS: What do George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald W. Reagan, Jimmy E. Carter, and Barack Obama all have in common besides being elected President? None of them had to present a birth certificate before they ran for office. Why is Obama special? You people just don’t like Hawaiians, do you? [emphases original]
Mr. Erickson’s credibility as a lawyer and as a rational debater is truly suspect. Here’s why:
On the question of whether or not past Presidents and/or candidates have ever had to present a birth certificate before running for office, the proverbial cart is being put before the horse. There currently is no law that enforces presidential eligibility, nor to what degree it should be enforced. Does Mr. Erickson not see an issue with this simple fact? Perhaps not, though he seems to be sufficiently satisfied with such blissful ignorance.
Furthermore, on the same question, what if only now the American People have “awaken,” as it were, to questioning the legitimacy of a sitting President? Is this a bad thing? I thought that grassroots efforts were to be applauded, not castigated? What if there are those of us who simply don’t know one way or the other?
Surely Mr. Erickson knows that if the Constitution stipulates a given thing and there is otherwise no existing law that directly deals with that thing, then enforcement of such a thing flows down to the States and/or the People, respectively. Therefore, to ask the question is a perfectly legitimate — if not obligatory — responsibility of the citizenry.
On the question of Mr. Obama’s being special: no, he isn’t any more or less special than any other man who has historically held the office.
Yet, it is about the Constitution.
Moving on, the eligibility question is truly a dangerous one for some, including (apparently) Mr. Erickson, though plenty have questions and further issues that extend beyond the presidency.
For starters, FoxNews.com covered gubernatorial candidates for Georgia and Texas, Rep. Nathan Deal and Debra Medina, respectively (which I will similarly dissect):
A couple of widely debunked conspiracy theories are getting mainstream attention in two of the country’s gubernatorial races.
Really? Who “debunked” either one of these “conspiracy” theories? Certainly not the FactCheck.org blog.
Republican Debra Medina, a candidate for governor in Texas, has said she has questions about whether the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks — echoing the members of the so-called 9/11 “Truther” movement, which rejects the accepted fact that Al Qaeda terrorists acted alone.
And in Georgia, Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor, has sent a letter to the White House asking President Obama to release his birth certificate — a request that is at the heart of the “birther” movement, which questions whether the president was born in Hawaii.
But Medina and Deal insist they are not part of those movements, which have drawn derision and scorn for focusing on conspiracy theories that lack evidence or have been proven false.
Medina has said she believes in the right of 9/11 truthers to ask questions, but she rejects the notion that she is one of them.
“Do I champion those ideas? No I don’t,” she said. “Have I been working on them? No I haven’t. Am I a conspiracy theorist? No, I’m not. Would I consider myself a 9/11 truther? No, I would not.” …
Later, she released a statement saying she did not believe the government was involved in the attacks. …
In Georgia, Deal, who sent his letter in December, says he is not questioning Obama’s legitimacy, but he believes the president would like a chance to put the issue to rest — even though the Hawaiian government confirmed during the 2008 campaign that a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, which his campaign posted on his Web site, was authentic.
Really, FoxNews? Are you really, really sure about that? I know that I and many other bloggers, including The Post & Email, can find no corroborating evidence that “the Hawaiian government confirmed … that a copy of Obama’s birth certificate … was authentic” (TP&E’s link; TampaBay.com’s link; readers will notice that the Hawaii Department of Health never makes a public, direct connection between anything publicly available and what they have on file).
Rep. Deal went on to say the following:
“I have simply asked the president, tell me where I can refer these constituent inquiries to a source that you think is credible so that we can answer their questions,” he said. “I think that’s a reasonable proposition and certainly something that I think the president should respond to. Although at this point he has not.”
No receipt for the certification of live birth, no comment from anyone who allegedly procured the document, and no response to Rep. Deal’s letter. While the letter itself is not public, to date, the Administration hasn’t even commented on where the federal officer’s constituents should go to confirm the President’s background documentation.
There has been a lot of eligibility news; below are highlighted points to peruse:
Site note: I have changed my comment policy. You will now have to register (free) to post a comment, and all comments are moderated (that means I approve every comment before it becomes public). Unfortunately, I have had too many opposition commenters post the same things over and over again to try to make their points; that is now stopping. Of course, the opposition is still free to comment, but keep it original and civil.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Via WorldNetDaily and TheHill.com comes the following video from today’s National Prayer Breakfast during which President Obama remarked that he doesn’t think that his citizenship should be questioned:
…Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.
Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other’s motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams – even when we don’t share the same plans on how to fulfill them.
Once again, a particularly prescient comment — from “RED NECK INN MA” — is on TheHill’s posting:
Personally I am no birther … but I am curious as to why Obama continues to beat on this issue .. is it a politcal ploy by his handlers to continue to use this as a divisive issue?To try and embarrass a certain segment of the popualtion? And if not, why doesn’t he just provide the certificate and end all the specualtion for the conspirators once and for all ? Obama has certainly been a little less than forthcoming on his grades, his Harvard review publications and many other accomplishments he has accomplished .. it makes one wonder what his true intentions are .. and if he is indeed the self described post partisan, post racial, post everything he claims .. seems to me he would disperse this rumor once and for all and lets move on …
Yeah, well, the Democrats actually refuse to give up on the issue; in fact, as HotAir.com has already pointed out, the party wants to make it a political issue for 2010. Not only this, but as Prof. Jacobson notes, calling those of us who challenge this Administration crazy (in one form or another, to include the “birther” pejorative) will likely only inflame the electorate, potentially costing the Democrats even more seats at the end of the year.
Now, dare I say that anyone’s smearing the President — he is, after all, smearing himself just fine (no, wait — the teleprompter made him do this latest gaffe!) — the smears against those of us who actually do question this President continue, unfortunately, over at PeachPundit.
Rep. Nathan Deal’s request for information regarding the President’s birth certificate (here’s my latest on that story) has drawn the ire of commenter Loren Collins (I nevertheless congratulate him on the cross-post on Georgia’s biggest blog).
So, what’s the beef? Well, shouldn’t Rep. Deal have to show his birth certificate as a GOP gubernatorial candidate for Georgia Governor? Here’s the same cross-posting snippet (Loren’s link):
I have never seen any proof that Nathan Deal is a U.S. citizen. Unlike President Obama, he has never released any records of his birth. The documentation that is publicly available leaves many things to be desired. Extensive online research turns up only an alleged birthdate and birthplace of Millen, Georgia. Who were his parents? What was the hospital? Who was the delivering doctor? These are questions that need answers.
You see, there are unsourced internet rumors that Nathan Deal was not born in Georgia at all. That instead, his mother gave birth to him while his parents were in Canada, dodging the WWII draft. They then returned to Georgia and registered his birth here. Moreover, there is further rumor that Nathan is actually the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I’m not saying these rumors are true, but when can we expect Deal to produce the documents that would put them to rest? What is he hiding?
And unfortunately, a birth certificate alone cannot settle this matter, even after it’s been forensically examined. Deal has been a U.S. Congressman since 1993, and was previously a Georgia State Senator beginning in 1981. Both offices have citizenship requirements, yet in his nearly three decades in elected office, Nathan Deal has never publicly produced a shred of evidence to support his presumed U.S. birth and citizenship. Three decades of evasion. Even his Congressional website says nothing about his birth, opting instead for the conveniently ambiguous statement that he “was raised in Sandersville, Georgia.” His gubernatorial campaign website avoids the subject of his youth entirely.
And are you aware his first name is not actually “Nathan”? It’s John. John Nathan Deal. Did he ever legally change his name? Could his surname still be Rosenberg? We simply don’t know.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have spoken with Mr. Collins on the phone as he interviewed me for a book that he is writing regarding the eligibility movement. As a part of a follow-up email, he asked me about Rep. Deal and eligibility:
As you know, Nathan Deal has asked Obama to publicly produce a birth certificate. Since Deal is running for governor, and the Georgia governor is required to be a US citizen, do you think Deal should publicly produce his own birth certificate? Should it be
authenticated in the same fashion you’d like to see Obama’s authenticated?
…to which I responded accordingly:
Regarding an answer to your follow-up question:
According to the GeorgiaEncyclopdia.org site, the following candidate qualification requirements must be met in order to be seated as a Governor for Georgia:
- Must be 30 years old “upon assumption of office;”
- Must have been a US citizen (no qualifiers there) for 15 years prior to election;
- Must have been a resident (no qualifiers there) of Georgia for 6 years prior to election
Consistent with my call that federal candidates for the office of the presidency and vice-presidency should be required to show their bona fides, I think it would be similarly helpful if candidates for Governor would submit documentation that substantiates the above qualifications as a part of their request to be put on the ballot.
In the instance that a given candidate’s background is suspect by, say, the Secretary of State’s office, that would be grounds for either further research or disqualification.
Honestly, I don’t see what the problem is in asking for any candidate’s bona fides, especially if some of us have reason to believe that said candidate’s credentials are in doubt. This would be akin to someone having a problem with getting a mortgage because the mortgage broker is asking for documentation of income, thereby putting lower-income individuals at a disadvantage in the process — wait: that “someone” is the federal government making the complaint!
As far as what the President thinks about those of us questioning his background is concerned, I’ll simply say what I’ve been saying in some comments here lately:
Cry me a river, big guy.
You’re a public servant in the highest elected office in the land. You don’t have any rights as President — only specifically-delineated power and authority. Therefore, it’s not up to you to decide who gets to question you and about what. You’re not obligated to answer any questions (unless the Constitution otherwise calls for it), and we’re not obligated to listen to your defiant, ego-laden attitude about questions you don’t like.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga: