231 thoughts on “Eligibility Update: Rush on Marco; Official Congressional Memo”

  1. Re: “The Hawaii Department of Health finally disclosed an image of their ‘departmental embossed seal’ to me through a UIPA request and not only did they do everything to try to keep from giving it to me–but *ahem* it is probably not what Obama voters imagined.=) Anyway, everything is in the post….thanks!”

    So, are you saying that the image that FactCheck published was forged? Then, why would the officials in the Republican governor’s administration of Linda Lingle, and the governor herself, repeatedly say that the facts on the birth certificate are accurate?

    I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have taken action. But he didn’t. So, he and the governor and the two officials who confirmed (not to mention the original clerk who filled in the computer form to generate the certification) are all part of the plot?

    By the way, did you ask in your request whether the seal that they sent you now is the same seal used in 2007 when they sent the document to Obama? Yes or No?

  2. Obama’s COLB is a forgery.

    …says “Dr.” “Polarik,” the nonexpert (who admits to lying in court affidavits).

    “Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”

    In response to these frivolous lawsuits, President Obama’s lawyers simply have filed dismissal motions, and have a perfect track record of success.

  3. Obama’s COLB is a forgery.

    Sam, qwerty, bob, and others, this is the truth, in case you didn’t already know.

  4. What is it Obama is hiding?

    “Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

  5. Regarding this statement: “Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? ‘

    Answer: No one believes that birthers would pay anything.

    The birth certificate that Obama has already posted and shown the physical copy of is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by two department heads in a Republican governor’s administration and the Republican governor herself.

    Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  6. Re: “Lingle got her information from the other one. Lingle’s speaking on this issue is hearsay. Nice try though, keep obfuscating.’

    If Lingle got the information from her officials, it means that she must believe them, and she supplied information that they did not deliver in their statements, namely the name of Obama’s hospital, Kapiolani. In any case, there were two department heads who confirmed, and then the governor (who may only be saying that she believes her officials). In addition, there is this witness, who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii and writing home about it (heresay too, of course, but tending to confirm):
    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    For the birth certificate to be false, first there must have been a birth outside of Hawaii, and then at least three officials of the Hawaii government (the clerk who filled in the form and the two heads of departments who confirmed) must be lying about the facts in the file. I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have taken action. But he didn’t.

    So, the conservative attorney general must be in on the conspiracy too. The governor of Hawaii would under your theory merely be a dupe, but it would be outright conspiracy for a conservative attorney general to hear the birther claims of birth in Kenya and not investigate. But, of course, he actually may have investigated, and found that the published Hawaii birth certificate is based on a real original birth certificate in the files saying, as the governor said, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    And, by the way, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii. There is not a shred of real evidence that Obama was born anywhere else that Hawaii (except for obviously forged “Kenya birth certificates.”)

  7. Gotcha: Dr. Fukino told Governor Lingle that Hawaii has a valid birth certificate for President Obama. Because, as you say, President Obama doesn’t have a valid birth certificate, Dr. Fukino is a liar (and quite possibly a criminal as well). Are there any other Hawaii Health Department officials that are also in on it?

    What about FackCheck? Are they in on it as well, or were they just taken by this forged COLB?

    And what about the newspaper announcements? Obviously the newspapers just print was given to them; they’re likely innocent rubes. But if President Obama doesn’t have a valid birth certificate, how did they have any information to print in 1961?

  8. qwertyman says:
    December 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
    You must also of course believe that Factcheck is in on this conspiracy. Also in on this conspiracy are the Republican governor and Health Director of Hawaii, since those two have stated on multiple occasions that their original vital records reflect that Obama was born at Kapi’olani in Honolulu, Hawaii.
    *********************************************
    qwerty, The two you mention is really only one. Lingle got her information from the other one. Lingle’s speaking on this issue is hearsay. Nice try though, keep obfuscating.

  9. “Obama’s legal birth certificate” has been shown to be a forgery, along with his entire life in America, all FAKE. Just a photoshop phony.

    So Obama and his campaign perpetrating a massive conspiracy to create a fraudulent document.

    You must also of course believe that Factcheck is in on this conspiracy. Also in on this conspiracy are the Republican governor and Health Director of Hawaii, since those two have stated on multiple occasions that their original vital records reflect that Obama was born at Kapi’olani in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Do you have any idea how paranoid you sound, my illiterate plagiarizing birther friend?

  10. qwertyman says:
    December 1, 2010 at 9:28 am
    A copy of Obama’s legal birth certificate has been posted on the internet. Just because WND and birthers refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not so.
    *******************************
    Don’t make me laugh. Do really believe this crap?

    “Obama’s legal birth certificate” has been shown to be a forgery, along with his entire life in America, all FAKE. Just a photoshop phony.

  11. Re: “Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY
    being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? ‘

    Answer: No one believes that birthers would pay anything. The birth certificate that Obama has already posted and shown the physical copy of is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by two department heads in a Republican governor’s administration and the Republican governor herself.

    Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  12. To this Day………No Legal Proof. No Court has allowed Discovery. Why hasn’t
    Obama allowed Discovery????

    No court has ordered discovery in a birther case, a streak unlikely to end any time soon.

    Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY
    being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? Which only proves his father was born in Kenya.

    A copy of Obama’s legal birth certificate has been posted on the internet. Just because WND and birthers refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not so.

    If there was absolute “PROOF” of Obama’s citizenship there would not be
    any Lawsuits against him…….

    Untrue. Any crank can file a lawsuit against anybody for any reason, as Orly and others birthers have shown. The quickest and cheapest way to dispose of completely frivolous cases is to have them promptly dismissed, as Obama has done in the few cases which named him as a defendant, and as has every defendant named in a birther suit to date.

    SHOW THE “PROOF” IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW… UNLESS YOU ARE AFRAID TO.

    Or, unless you are able to get every birther case thrown out without the time and expense of discovery. Nothing about being afraid, just about avoiding spending time and money you don’t have to.

    Also, there is not a single birther suit that would have been satisfied with any production of documents. Every case to date alleges some other reason besides “where’s the birth certificate?” In essence, every birther has had a backup plan, from Phil Berg’s erroneous claim that Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia, to the, um, novel claim that dual citizenship is a disqualifier, a claim no current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor agrees with.

    For someone who “thinks” or tries to project (he/she) knows the Law as you try
    so often, you have failed by NOT SHOWING US “Undeniable FACTS”, you only offer
    your opinion……..Again NO PROOF. We don’t want to hear about “here say”[sic] from
    Gov. Lingle or the Hawaii DoH. We know they “worded” their statements to say
    “only” they have his records on file. Hawaii Law prevents them from saying if
    Obama was adopted.

    The paper copy of the birth certificate Obama put on his web site is prima facie evidence in any court of law in the United States. That means that on its own, the COLB proves that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in August 1961. Unless you have specific evidence rebutting those facts (which you do not), that is the end of any legal case.

    Further, your implication that Obama was adopted is not matched by any facts.

  13. To Qwertyman: I have to laugh over your enthusiasm over Obama, however
    I admire your dedication to try and convince “American’s” that Obama is legit.

    To this Day………No Legal Proof. No Court has allowed Discovery. Why hasn’t
    Obama allowed Discovery????

    Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY
    being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? Which only proves his father was born in Kenya.

    That’s one you have failed to answer on many occasions.

    You have made fraudulent statements as usual. YOU HAVE NO LEGAL PROOF
    ABOUT OBAMA BECAUSE IT IS CONCEALED. HE SUBMITTED NOTHING BY HIMSELF,
    ONLY THROUGH FACTCHECK, ETC.. NOT HIM

    IF YOU HAD “LEGAL” PROOF IT WOULD BE ON THE “FRONT” PAGE OF EVERY
    NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD.

    Sure, Hawaii might have Obama’s “COLB”. That is “sealed”, which usually occurs
    after an adoption took place.

    Why don’t you consider reading “ALL” of Hawwaii Statutes, Federal Statutes and Our
    Constitution before making your “comments’

    If there was absolute “PROOF” of Obama’s citizenship there would not be
    any Lawsuits against him…….

    Since when does “COMMENT’S” over the internet prevail over a Legal Discovery?

    EVERYONE KNOWS, that not allowing Legal Discovery is cause for concern.
    You know it and everyone else knows it………….

    SHOW THE “PROOF” IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW… UNLESS YOU ARE AFRAID TO.

    Which must be, as it hasn’t happened yet.

    For someone who “thinks” or tries to project (he/she) knows the Law as you try
    so often, you have failed by NOT SHOWING US “Undeniable FACTS”, you only offer
    your opinion……..Again NO PROOF. We don’t want to hear about “here say” from
    Gov. Lingle or the Hawaii DoH. We know they “worded” their statements to say
    “only” they have his records on file. Hawaii Law prevents them from saying if
    Obama was adopted.

    Show us the LEGAL proof ……which you do not have…

  14. We seem to have strayed from the basic discussion, which was:

    (1) whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii (He was, and he has proven it with the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the repeated confirmations of the Republican officials); and

    (2) Whether or not Obama’s father’s citizenship has any effect on his Natural Born Citizen status (It doesn’t, since every US citizen who is born in the country is a Natural Born Citizen).

  15. You have no proof of what type of passport the English Monarchy travel under.

    Which is why I prefaced my comment with “I suspect.” If the heir apparent is not recognized as being a diplomat by law (and I don’t think the heir apparent is), I cannot think of a logical reason why the heir apparent would not travel on a diplomatic passport, when many who are not the heir apparent do so travel.

    And none of this applies to President Obama, as he is not in line for the British throne.

    Who’s job is it bob ?

    Nobody’s. If you think it is such a pressing concern about diplomat’s children’s birth certificates, then contact your legislator to sponsor a law to make it somebody’s job. Perhaps this primer on how laws are created can explain it for you.

    They were born in the USA with valid birth certificates. That makes them Natural Born Citizens.

    No; people born in the United States to a diplomat are not United States citizens. Possession of a (valid, even) birth certification does not automatically make a person a U.S. citizen, as there are two minor exceptions (this being one them) to the rule regarding birth in the United States.

    He’s born here, he has a legitimate birth certificate, which is accepted in all instances as definitive proof of citizenship — he is a U.S. citizen.

    Again, another one of your propter hoc mistakes: A birth certificate is evidence of place of birth (which is a question of fact), but it is not evidence of citizenship (which is a question of law). Although a birth certificate is proof of place of birth, if it used to gain a benefit reserved only for citizens, then that would be a crime.

    None of this, however, applies to President Obama, as neither of his parents were foreign diplomats.

    Why did OBAMA change the rules to begin with?

    President Obama didn’t change any rules.

    It’s not even fraud, because who are you to say that he’s not a U.S. citizen?

    I don’t say; SCOTUS says. (And, note, I never said “fraud”; I said “crime.”)

    You seem to be under the delusion that just because SCOTUS makes a ruling, the 2 other branches of government snap to, and follow suit. Wrong again!!

    Have you read Marbury v. Madison? Or, say, Federalist Paper No. 78?

    [Then there’s the formal rules about this. Here is what an older version of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual said (dated 1995, emphasis mine):

    1. If you attempting to prove that there was a change of law since 1995, you have to prove the change occurred while President Obama was president (as he was not president from 1995 to 2008).
    2. If you stopped mindless copying from this article, and actually read it, you’d note the author failed to demonstrate on actual conflict between the prior regulations and the present ones.

  16. [Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity

    The monarch is literally the head of state. When diplomats travel (on diplomatic passports), they represent the state; this “agent of the Queen, not Parliament” is nonsense. (In the future, you should not rely on jsmack19 on wikilaw3k.org for legal advice.) Sovereign immunity is an entirely different concept, but you thus far have displayed no fear of speaking from ignorance.]

    Nice fabrication.

    You have no proof of what type of passport the English Monarchy travel under.

    Get back to us when you do.

  17. bob said

    [Yes, because they were all born in the United States. It is not the birthing attendant’s or the state’s job to record whether a parent was a diplomat.]

    Not suprising, you missed the point of the article completely.

    Who’s job is it bob ?

    They were born in the USA with valid birth cetificates. That makes them Natural Born Citizens. I don’t make the rules King OBAMA does.

    Why did OBAMA change the rules to begin with? I am sure you have an answer to this one smart guy.

    again

    [ It’s not even fraud, because who are you to say that he’s not a U.S. citizen? He’s born here, he has a legitimate birth certificate, which is accepted in all instances as definitive proof of citizenship — he is a U.S. citizen.]

    bob said

    [No; as SCOTUS has ruled, as children of diplomats, they are not even citizens.]

    You seem to be under the delusion that just because SCOTUS makes a ruling, the 2 other branches of government snap to, and follow suit. Wrong again!!

    Here is the OBAMA change.

    [Then there’s the formal rules about this. Here is what an older version of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual said (dated 1995, emphasis mine):

    Under international law, diplomatic agents are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. Diplomatic agents are also immune, with limited exception, from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the state. The immunities of diplomatic agents extend to the members of their family forming part of their household. For this reason children born in the United States to diplomats to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it.

    So far so good. But the current version of the FAM no longer says that:

    “Blue List” Cases – Children of Foreign Diplomats: 7 FAM1100 Appendix J (under development) provides extensive guidance on the issue of children born in the United States to parents serving as foreign diplomats, consuls, or administrative and technical staff accredited to the United States, the United Nations, and specific international organizations, and whether such children are born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”]

  18. Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity

    The monarch is literally the head of state. When diplomats travel (on diplomatic passports), they represent the state; this “agent of the Queen, not Parliament” is nonsense. (In the future, you should not rely on jsmack19 on wikilaw3k.org for legal advice.) Sovereign immunity is an entirely different concept, but you thus far have displayed no fear of speaking from ignorance.

    Obama changes the rules, Children of Diplomats now Natural Born Citizens?

    “Obots” haven’t changed any rules.

    I guess that these children are now eligible to be POTUS.

    No; as SCOTUS has ruled, as children of diplomats, they are not even citizens.

    They have born in USA birth certificates like Obama.

    Yes, because they were all born in the United States. It is not the birthing attendant’s or the state’s job to record whether a parent was a diplomat.

    While it would be possible for these diplomatic children to obtain government documents that only citizens are entitled to, i.e., a passport, that would be a crime, as by law, they are not citizens.

    And none of this applies to President Obama, as he was born in the United States, and neither parent was a foreign diplomat.

    Any more strawmen?

    Now if the 14th ammendment were enforced as it was intended by congress, it would be crystal clear.

    Glad to know you speak for Congress. And are smarter than SCOTUS. Can’t wait for you to proclaim yourself emperor.

  19. Obama changes the rules, Children of Diplomats now Natural Born Citizens?

    I guess that these children are now eligible to be POTUS. They have born in USA birth certificates like Obama.

    This get’s better every day

    [Children of Diplomats
    By Mark Krikorian , August 13, 2010
    There’s a wrinkle of the birthright citizenship debate that I think is telling. One thing that everyone accepts is that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes kids born here to representatives of foreign governments. Hans von Spakovsky points out in his comments at Politico, “All scholars agree that the children of diplomats are not citizens.” This comes up also at Ramesh Ponnuru’s forum on the topic at the Washington Post site, and pretty much everywhere else this issue is discussed, as a prefatory point not worth dwelling on.

    But it’s not true. It’s not true as a practical matter, and it seems the Obama State Department may be revising the formal rules as well.

    As a practical matter, there is nothing preventing the U.S.-born child of a foreign diplomat from simply making himself a U.S. citizen. I’d guess that a significant number of foreign diplomatic personnel live in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and some of them are bound to have children born there. I have three boys born in Virginia and didn’t notice anywhere on their birth certificates, or the forms I filled out at the hospital when they were born, anything asking whether I was the diplomatic representative of a foreign country. So I called the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Vital Records, and confirmed they do not make any inquiry or notation on the birth certificates they issue that the baby in question was born to foreign diplomats.

    That means such a person could use that birth certificate to get a Social Security number, a passport, and driver’s license, and register to vote. It’s not even fraud, because who are you to say that he’s not a U.S. citizen? He’s born here, he has a legitimate birth certificate, which is accepted in all instances as definitive proof of citizenship — he is a U.S. citizen.

    more here
    http://www.cis.org/krikorian/children-of-diplomats

  20. “Do you really think the framers of the Constitution, after going to great lengths to provide for the security of the country in declaring no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be president, would allow the son of a Prince of England to be Commander in Chief of the military?’

    Answer: They really did not go to extraordinary lengths. Yes, they barred foreign citizens, and yes they barred naturalized citizens. But they did not, for example, bar convicted criminals from becoming president. They could have said “no Tories’ (Remember the Tories, the Americans who fought against the Revolution?) But they didn’t. They could have said; “No one convicted of treason,’ but they didn’t. They made very few exclusions. They excluded foreigners and they excluded naturalized citizens because they were not born in the USA (and those under 35 and not resident for 14 years). But that is all.

    Why not? Because the principle is that the voters decide and that the voters are smart enough to make the decisions.

    So, the question is, if the son of the King of England (or, say Thailand, whose king actually WAS born in the USA) was born in the USA, was a citizen of the USA, had lived in the USA for at least 14 years and was at least 35 years old and was ELECTED whether the framers would have excluded him? And the answer is, probably no, there is no evidence that they would have excluded him. If we have the right to vote for US-born criminals, we have the right to vote for the US-born son of a king. (And if we make a mistake, then we have the right to make mistakes.)

    Further to “great lengths.” I’ve always wondered if the framers were so worried about foreign influence why they required only 14 years of residence in the USA. If a candidate was 55 years old and had resided in the USA for only 14 years, he would have been outside of the USA for nearly three-quarters of her or his life. If that is allowed, and it is, and if US-born criminals are eligible, then what is the evidence that the framers were so terribly worried? The evidence is just the reverse, that they figured that the voters in future years could decide for themselves whether to vote for criminals, Tories, people who have lived most of their lives abroad, sons of kings or whatever.

  21. I suspect the Prince of England (as heir appearant) travels on a diplomatic passport. So any child of his born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen.
    —————————————————————————————————–

    Maybe, Maybe not

    [Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity.]

    Now if the 14th ammendment were enforced as it was intended by congress, it would be crystal clear. Not even a U. S. citizen.

  22. Sam, Do you really think the framers of the Constitution, after going to great lengths to provide for the security of the country in declaring no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be president, would allow the son of a Prince of England to be Commander in Chief of the military?

    I suspect the Prince of England (as heir appearant) travels on a diplomatic passport. So any child of his born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen.

    Next phantom problem?

  23. SanDiegoSam says:
    November 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Until prince William ascends to the throne, he does not carry diplomatic status while traveling abroad. So yes. Their child, if American born, would absolutely be eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution until such time as he became king.
    **********************************
    Sam, Do you really think the framers of the Constitution, after going to great lengths to provide for the security of the country in declaring no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be president, would allow the son of a Prince of England to be Commander in Chief of the military? You don’t give the framers of the Constitution much credit do you? Your arguments are absurd, and make all of you obots look like fools, and liars.

    Seriously Sam, do you really think the framers were that stupid, as to allow the son of any foreigner to be eligible to be President? Where is the security in that? It just shows how ridiculous your argument is.

  24. Bill Cutting wrote::

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    We like arguments that *win* in court.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    Happy fantasizing.

  25. But foreign laws, such as the succession to foreign crowns, have no effect on the situation. And for good reason. How can we allow some foreign law affect the capabilities of a US-born citizen? For that reason dual nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status.

    This is not entirely a hypothetical situation, either. In the line of succession to the British throne, # 46 is Tewa Lascelles. Born in Edgewood, New Mexico he is both a natural born US citizen and British royalty.

    http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

    There are others… but he is closest to the throne.

  26. Well, golly-gee, everyone — go throw out all your receipts! SanDiegoSam says they really don’t mean squat!

    Of course, I never said that. But as we know, when Phil cannot attack the argument being made, he invents another one.

  27. @ Bill Cutting

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    Since it is the law, and we are talking of the law, why would you find that strange?

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    That would depend entirely on how it was overturned.

    I am proposing inviting Prince William of England and his bride to be, to the USA to birth their first child. He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.

    Until prince William ascends to the throne, he does not carry diplomatic status while traveling abroad. So yes. Their child, if American born, would absolutely be eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution until such time as he became king.

  28. Further to the Prince William discussion. Re diplomat. You may be right on William having diplomat status. If so, the child would not be eligible. However, King Bumiphol of Thailand actually WAS born in the USA, and if I remember right, he had to give up US citizenship in order to become king of Thailand. (The difference might be that Bumiphol was born during a coup of some kind and so his parents may not have had diplomatic status.)

  29. Re: “I’m not so sure. Prince William is in line to the throne of the UK, he could easily qualify as a foreign diplomat when traveling through the US. If he was to renounce any rights to the monarchy though, and was a private British subject, then any child he had in the US would absolutely be eligible.’

    Answer: No, so long as the child is born in the USA and neither parent is a foreign diplomat she or he is Natural Born. If that person gives up citizenship before 35 she or he is not a citizen and hence not a Natural Born Citizen.

    But foreign laws, such as the succession to foreign crowns, have no effect on the situation. And for good reason. How can we allow some foreign law affect the capabilities of a US-born citizen? For that reason dual nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Some countries hold that the children of their citizens are still citizens of that country EVEN IF their parents have become naturalized citizens of the USA. Others say the children are not citizens if they are not born in that country. US law says that we don’t care about the foreign laws on the matter; only our laws apply.

    The Constitution excludes foreigners from becoming president and it excludes naturalized citizens, but it does not exclude ANY US-born citizen.

  30. Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    Because it is the law. Duh.

    What if it was overturned ?

    As there’s no indication that will happen, I don’t give it much thought.

    Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    If your hypothetical situation occurred, I would have to study the specific changes in the law before having an informed opinion.

    I am proposing inviting Prince William of England and his bride to be, to the USA to birth their first child.

    Weird hobby, but whatever floats your boat. (And why would they ever accept?)

    He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.

    Not “the OBOT” definition. The law of the United States. Duh.

    Now, if this U.S.-born child of Prince William, for reasons inexplicable, sought both the American presidency and the British Crown …

    … President Obama would still be eligible, as he is not in line for the British Crown.

    * * *

    If this is how some random dude is treated in the blogosphere, you gotta wonder how the opposition would treat an actual enemy of theirs that they’d actually be able to converse with in real life yikes!

    Thankfully, Walter Fitzpatrick is in jail, and hopefully won’t harm anyone while there. And Darren Huff will likely soon be joining him there.

  31. Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    The case explicitly stated as part of its reasoning that anybody born in the US, regardless of parentage (with inapplicable exceptions to Obama), is a natural born citizen.

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    In the unlikely event of Wong being overturned, that in itself would not make Obama retroactively ineligible for office. The Supreme Court is not going to retroactively remove citizenship from millions of Americans going back over a century. Not even the Republicans advocating the repeal of the 14th Amendment are suggesting that they would try to retroactively remove citizenship from those born here.

  32. Answer. Yes, he or she would be eligible, big deal.

    I’m not so sure. Prince William is in line to the throne of the UK, he could easily qualify as a foreign diplomat when traveling through the US. If he was to renounce any rights to the monarchy though, and was a private British subject, then any child he had in the US would absolutely be eligible.

    Of course, Bill is just putting together a strawman and ignoring the fact that there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with his interpretation.

  33. Re: “the 1795 Naturalization act signed by President GW and Vice president JA.”

    Answer: All that that act did was to add the foreign-born children of US citizens to the class of already existing Natural Born Citizens, and the class of natural born citizens were (and still are) the US citizens who were born in the country. The only 35-year old 14-year-resident US citizens who are excluded from eligibility are naturalized citizens.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  34. Re: The invitation to the British royalty to have their child in the USA. “He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.”

    Answer. Yes, he or she would be eligible, big deal.

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

  35. Phil

    I am creating the “Romney Conspiracy Theory.Org” blog to get a head start for 2012.

    Regards

    Bill

  36. sponge bob said
    [So you concede that President Obama is a natural born citizen under Wong Kim Ark, and you merely disagree with the result in that case.

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    I am proposing inviting Prince William of England and his bride to be, to the USA to birth their first child. He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.

  37. Granite
    [Reply: DREAM ON. We in the real world know that the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred simply to the place of birth, and that AMERICANS at the time of the writing of the Constitution never used it to refer to the parents of the citizen. That is why dozens of Constitutional and legal scholars have held as in the following quotations:]

    Hey another OBOT who has never read the 1795 Naturalization act signed by President GW and Vice president JA.

  38. I never claimed that it was or was not falsified, and I think that the HI DoH has every reason to believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

    “Just wanting to see a receipt” is an indirect allegation that you believe that the COLB is somehow falsified and that the DoH is lying. Your feeble attempts to pretend to be neutral or not jumping to conclusions are not convincing.

    And I think that’s why folks like you want folks like me to just shut up about the whole thing. It raises too many questions and the stakes are way too high. For some.

    The “questions raised” are not based on any competent evidence.

    Either way, you are once again free to characterize my request for the alleged COLB’s receipt as “completely pointless,” but, once again, that won’t get me to shut up about it.

    I know it won’t; conspiracy theorists often believe that a complete lack of evidence is evidence of a cover up, rather than, you know, a complete lack of evidence! You have your conclusion (Obama must somehow be ineligible; after all, by your words he is a secret Muslim who hates America!) and you try to do your damnedest to find some way of showing that he is ineligible for office.

  39. It would be interesting to turn the question around.

    What would be interesting if you could answer the freakin’ question posed to you: Why haven’t you spent the last two years obsessively writing about the fear of a purple-suit mass-murder spree? It is, after all, still a question that SCOTUS has not decided.

    Also, just because federal/State law doesn’t require background documentation to substantiate presidential eligibility doesn’t stop anyone from giving the alleged document to a government-run web site — say, the FEC — for full display, now, does it?

    Why would the FEC do that? The FEC administers and enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) – the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The FEC is not a government-run photo-sharing site.

    I can’t prove that Mr. Obama isn’t eligible, and the opposition can’t prove that he is.

    Wrong. Again. It has been proved, repeatedly; you just refuse to accept that proof:
    1. Uncontradicted law has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
    2. Uncontradicted competent evidence demonstrates President Obama was born in Hawaii, which is in the United States.

    Anything else is an argument from ignorance, or goalpost shifting.

    I’ve said this over and over again: Because there are no federal (or State, for that matter) statutes that govern presidential eligibility (in terms of the enforcement thereof), the only thing that’s left is the court of public opinion.

    Or the actual courts, or Congress (depending on when enforcement is sought).

  40. Phil:

    Regarding: Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

    That only works if the family claims that the child was born without a doctor or midwife present. In Obama’s situation, it only affects birth inside of the USA if all these things happen at the same time: (1) He was born outside of the USA; (2) his parents or grandparents claimed that he was born in Hawaii and that there was no physician presdent; (3) The officials in Hawaii at the time accepted this claim without a demand for further evidence (and the PUMA Lori, a former obstetric nurse, said that the procedure was to demand further evidence such as doctor checkups); (4) The officials at the time generated a Hawaii birth document stating that Obama was born in Honolulu–when they have said that what they do is to create a Hawaii birth certificate without any place of birth; (5) the officials today saw the original report of birth without a doctor present and LIED when they said that it verified birth in Hawaii because as you have said, a report of birth at home might be inconclusive and therefore could hardly be said to have verified; (6) the witness is lying about her discussion with the doctor from Kapiolani Hospital back in 1961; (7) The governor of Hawaii is lying about Kapiolani Hospital.

    The law that allowed foreign births to be registered in Hawaii was passed in 1982. Yes, as Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer says, it was possible to register an unattended birth, but that is NOT the same thing as putting a New Jersey birth certificate into a Hawaii birth certificate file. The officials in Hawaii have said that there is an original birth certificate in the file, therefore it cannot be from New Jersey or Kenya.

    Re your claim that the original would show more. Only if the officials, the governor and the witness all are lying. In any case, it is HAWAII’S decision not to send out the original anymore. You are welcome to lobby the new governor and legislature of Hawaii to change that rule and allow the original to be sent out again–but, I am certain that it would show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  41. “Did you waste two years of your life obsessively writing about the possibility of purple-suit-wearing mass-murder sprees?”

    From an agitated man posting comments at a time when Phil is getting a good night’s rest…

    1. “Did you waste two years of your life obsessively writing about the possibility of purple-suit-wearing mass-murder sprees?”

      From an agitated man posting comments at a time when Phil is getting a good night’s rest…

      It would be interesting to turn the question around. I’m wondering how many in the opposition feel that they’ve wasted lots of electronic ink on a very, very little-known personal blog out here in the blogosphere who refuses to stop questioning even when the apparent lack of evidence would seem (to some) to suggest that the question has already been answered.

      Well, of course, that would actually require a government official to specifically certify, say, the alleged COLB to be authentic (yes, yes, yes, I know, “But Phil, the document has a seal on it!” What — someone (we don’t know who, specifically) gave FactCheck some document (with no specific claims as to its origination) and posted it online saying, “See? Here it is! Now, stop questioning!”).

      Also, just because federal/State law doesn’t require background documentation to substantiate presidential eligibility doesn’t stop anyone from giving the alleged document to a government-run web site — say, the FEC — for full display, now, does it?

      Like I’ve said before: I can’t prove that Mr. Obama isn’t eligible, and the opposition can’t prove that he is. At this point, it’s all a matter of personal opinion.

      Alas, lots in the opposition think I’m being disingenuous with my questions, and that’s fine; that’s their prerogative. As I’ve just said, though, I get a kick out of the fact that my little web site here has provoked so much antipathy from the opposition.

      Really, all I am is a concerned citizen. That’s it.

      If this is how some random dude is treated in the blogosphere, you gotta wonder how the opposition would treat an actual enemy of theirs that they’d actually be able to converse with in real life… yikes!

      -Phil

  42. The actual question of presidential eligibility, however, has not been heard by SCOTUS.

    SCOTUS also has never heard the actual question regarding whether it is murder if you commit the killing while wearing a purple suit. Did you waste two years of your life obsessively writing about the possibility of purple-suit-wearing mass-murder sprees?

    If only that alleged COLB had a receipt, there’d at least be a starting point that concluded that this random image posted online is legitimate.

    Did I say anything about a COLB, or an online image? THE STATE OF HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII. The red-herring receipt is about the stupidest “eligibility issue” ever raised here, and that’s no mean feat.

    And yes, I’m fully aware that requiring substantiation for eligibility is to use your term a ridiculously higher standard[], even though it’s a constitutional requirement.

    You seriously cannot read for comprehension: President Obama is being held to a ridiculously higher standard than any other candidate for that (or any other) public office during that (or any other) election cycle. (And eligibility verification isn’t constitutionally required.)

    The question has always been, how is eligibility substantiated, to what degree, and who makes the call?

    Have you not been paying attention? How: Relevant competent evidence. What degree: Preponderance of the evidence. Who: Pre-election: courts; post-election: Congress.

    Not rocket science.

    every time I or someone sympathetic to my views raises a question, folks like you claim it’s a move

    If the goalpost-moving shoe fits….

    And yet you persist on the belief ….

    Again, assumptions: Heal thyself, physician.

    Of course, I completely disagree with your Sen. McCain premise.

    Which is why I intentionally limited it to include only rational people.

Comments are closed.