The Birthers and the Magna Carta

Personally I take great pleasure in being labeled a birther, it is much better than going down in history as a usurper.

This identity issue will not go away, nor should it. The question remains what is it that Barack Obama is so sure must be hidden from the American people? He has the power to easily put this to rest, but he does not. He or some other entity is paying expensive lawyers' fees to continue hiding this. I refuse to believe he is spending his money to fight this. Who is so invested in this coverup that they continue to finance what should be unnecessary?

I have posted forgery evidences against Barack Obama, court style, and sent them to him, US Attorney Fitzgerald, some senators and representatives. No one has come back to me to dispute the evidence. They are at http://www.divine-way.com/forgery_evidences_sss… and also at http://obama-birth-cert-forged-sss-impeach.blog…
Feel free to use this information.

From a comment fromt his article over at Frontpagemag.

Birther: “Oh why won't Barack Obama release his birth certificate? If only he did that simple little thing, we could put this whole matter to rest. And it would only cost him ten dollars.”

Rational Person (RP): “Didn't you see the birth certificate he posted online?”

Birther: “Anyone could have Photoshopped that. In fact, I saw an anonymous guy on the internet claim that he could prove it was faked. He's an expert in 'instructional media.'”

RP: “You do realize that 'instructional media' doesn't have anything to do with document analysis, right?”

Birther: “Regardless, it's still fake. If Obama truly had nothing to hide, he'd release his long-form birth certificate, not this computer printout.”

RP: “How should he release it? If he simply posted a scan online, wouldn't you accuse it of being faked?”

Birther: “Oh, certainly. Anything he produces shouldn't be trusted unless it's reviewed by a competent authority, like a judge.”

RP: “So if Obama obtained his long-form birth certificate, published it, had a judge review it, and then the judge announced that it was legit and he was born in Hawaii, that would be enough? You'd give up arguing that his election is illegitimate, stop filing lawsuits, and concede that he's eligible to be President?”

Birther: “Hardly. For all we know, Obama's parents could have lied to Hawaiian officials, and claimed he was born in Hawaii, when he was actually born in Kenya. Or Canada. For all we know, Hawaiian officials themselves might be in on the cover-up.”

RP: “What if it can be proven beyond a doubt that the birth certificate is real and accurate, and that he was born in Hawaii. Let's say there's a video of John F. Kennedy himself playing midwife to Ann Dunham. Would that settle the matter?”

Birther: “It'd settle the matter of where he was born. But that doesn't mean he's a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President.”

RP: “Why?”

Birther: “Because before he was born, his mother married a British citizen. That means she gave up her American citizenship even before he was born. And Obama can't be a natural-born citizen if neither of his parents were American citizens.”

RP: “So you're begging Obama to release his birth certificate, even though you admit it won't actually stop your complaints.”

Birther: “That's right.”

RP: “Well, what if I can show you that American citizens don't give up their American citizenship when they marry foreigners? Will that put this to rest?”

Birther: “Oh, no. Even if I accepted that he was born in Hawaii, and that his mother was still an American citizen, his father was still a Kenyan and British citizen, and that means Obama inherited dual citizenship and thus wasn't a natural-born citizen. So he can't be President.”

RP: “I see. For the sake of argument, then, let's say that I could show you that there's no requirement that a natural-born citizen be born of two U.S. citizens. Would that satisfy you?”

Birther: “Sorry, but no. Even if the birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii, and he could show that his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and that his father's citizenship didn't disqualify him, there's still the matter of Indonesia.”

RP: “What does Indonesia have to do with anything?”

Birther: “When Obama's mother married Lolo Soetoro, she gave up her U.S. citizenship, and by proxy, Obama's U.S. citizenship. So he can't be President.”

RP: “No, it doesn't work that way. Didn't we already cover this with her first marriage?”

Birther: “It doesn't matter. Even if her marriage didn't invalidate his citizenship, when Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, he ceased to be a U.S. natural-born citizen. So he can't be President.”

RP: “A minor child can't surrender his U.S. citizenship that way. Besides, there's no evidence that he was adopted in the first place.”

Birther: “Even if that's the case, he's still not in the clear. Because when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on his Indonesian passport, he gave up his U.S. citizenship.”

RP: “Apart from the fact that that wouldn't have sacrificed his citizenship, do you actually have any direct evidence that he in fact did use an Indonesian passport?”

Birther: “Not direct evidence. But American passport holders weren't allowed into Pakistan in 1981.”

RP: “Do you have any evidence that that is actually true about travel to Pakistan in 1981?”

Birther: “No.”

RP: “I see. OK, if you put aside the passport, would you concede that he's eligible to be President?”

Birther: “Still no. When Obama was adopted, his name was legally changed to 'Barry Soetoro.' There's no proof he ever changed his name back, but he ran for President as 'Barack Obama.' And that violates election law. I will never accept his Presidency until I see the documentation where he changed his name back to Obama.”

RP: “That's impossible. How can he possibly produce that documentation, when he never changed his name away from Obama in the first place? What proof is there that he was ever legally adopted or changed his name? And even if he was adopted, what possible reason would there be to legally change his first name to a nickname?”

Birther: “A school application in Indonesia says his last name was 'Soetoro.' They take those applications very seriously in Indonesia, so this is solid legal proof that he was adopted and had a name change.”

RP: “And the fact that the same application says he was born in Hawaii?”

Birther: “That was a mistake.”

RP: “OK, so to recap, you wanted Obama to release a birth certificate, but when he did, you accused it of being a forgery? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And you say that if he simply shared his long-form birth certificate with the public, that could be forged too? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “So you want him to release his long-form birth certificate and to have that birth certificate reviewed by a judge, to satisfy his critics and answer the questions they're asking? Right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if the judge affirms that the birth certificate is legitimate and it says his place of birth was Hawaii, you say it might be falsified, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And even if he proves he was born in Hawaii, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother's first marriage, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that the marriage isn't an issue, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his father's citizenship, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that his father's citizenship isn't an issue, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother's second marriage, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that his mother's second marriage isn't an issue, you claim he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his supposed adoption, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that he didn't give up his citizenship via adoption, you claim that he's still not a natural-born citizen because of his 1981 travel to Pakistan, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “And if he then proves that he didn't give up his citizenship via passport, and even when you run out of citizenship arguments completely, you then claim his election is illegitimate because his legal surname is Soetoro, right?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “So you want to know why Obama won't take the simple measure of releasing his birth certificate, when you already have at least eight consecutive fall-back arguments you'll make if he does so, whereby you'll continue to insist that he's ineligible for the Presidency even after he proves that he was born in Hawaii?”

Birther: “Right.”

RP: “Y'know, if I were Obama, I think I'd save my ten dollars too.”

Ah, yes, the native-born citizen who won the election by the biggest margins in decades is a usurper. Flawless logic.

You clowns need to face it, you did everything you could during the election to make Barack HUSSEIN Obama into a scary, foreign, muslim, commie, whatever and the American people still chose him overwhelmingly over a war hero republican and his idiot running mate. The still overwhelmingly support him today. You've got nothing. Go cry in your bunkers.

If you supported the Supreme Court's placement of George W. Bush, de facto loser of the 2000 election, into the highest office of the land you have no place to call Obama illegitimate or usurper. You are party to the greatest electoral crime in American History and the beginning of the end of American democracy.
Until the stains of the last 30 years of “conservative” tyranny, genocide, and violence against the Constitution are wiped clean by the prosecution of those responsible for October Surprise (treason), Iran Contra (treason), the Iraq war (lies and treason), the 2000 and 2004 election frauds, the Swift Boat liars, and the wealthy cretins who finance these racketeering operations, we will never have freedom, liberty, or a democratic republic.

If you want to end the “O” dynasty you don't need any old piece of paper left over from 1961. Your brain will be all you need. Remember, as he has written in his books, his father was a Kenyan. That makes his father a British citizen. Therefore his father's offspring come under British Common Law. British Common Law states that a male British Citizen over seas, that marries a alien female, and has children by her, transfers his British Citizenship to the new born at birth. Simple! Baby “O” was born a Brit at birth. Being born a Brit he was not and is not a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN! Now how do WE get this Brit out of OUR White House?

Justin K., You say Obama won by the biggest margin in decades? He won 52% to 46% that is a 1.13 ratio (52/46)… Clinton beat Dole by a more convincing 1.20 ratio (.4924/4071), and Clinton beat Bush by a slightly greater 1.14 ratio (.43/.377) Historically speaking the presidential race was fairly close. http://volokh.com/posts/1225913551.shtml

Take your meds, MarieDevine. If you don't have meds, see a psychiatrist.

This whole “conspiracy theory” stuff is garbage.

How exactly did the founding father's “conspire” against Obama by putting in the constitution that dual citizens at birth were not qualified to be Commander and Cheif of our millitary?

Just more propaganda out of weigel. To think he get paid to treat you like an idiot.

I don't think you're telling the truth. The Constitution doesn't say anything about dual citizens.

I think the real danger is from people who insist that British Common Law takes precedence over American law when it comes to U.S. citizenship!

Obama has posted the only birth document that Hawaii sends out. They no longer send copies of the original birth certificate.

Fortunately, the certification of live birth is legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, the birth certificate in the file cannot be from Kenya because in 1961 Hawaii did not allow foreign births to be registered.

IF Obama were qualified to be President of the US, he would have, long ago produced his birth certificate (The certificate of live birth cooked up by Snopes is NOT even accepted by Hawaii as proof of Hawaiian birth and is NOT acceptable for a US Passport application).

IF Obama were qualified to be President of the US, he would not be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending his farce, but he's in too deep now to be truthful.

I wonder what shameful activities he is hiding in those Obama scholastic records which he is so actively fighting to keep from the public ??? McCain was rather low in his class at Annapolis, and GW was a solid C student. So, it figures that Obama is hiding a lot more than a feeble grade point average.

Check out the cool stickers at http://www.ObamaKenyanOrIndonesian.com

Give it up, Gregory! It *is* accepted by Hawaii as proof of Hawaiian birth, it *is* acceptable for a US Passport application — those phony theories were discredited months ago.

Old Russian saying, You can tell same lie 1000 times but not change truth.

Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”

In Russia government make media say what they want – even if lie.

In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want – even if lie..

…..eventually they become same thing?!

I Igor produce Obmama birth certificate at http://www.igormarxo.org

The Birthers have put up a website.

http://www.thebirthers.org

Nothing brings out the nutcases like this story. Obama produced a Certification of Live Birth. That's what Hawaii sends you when you request your birth certificate. It is a prima facie document, good to get a passport, join little league, partake in court proceedings, and yes, to prove you're eligible to be the President of the United States of America. The document clearly states that Obama was born in Hawaii in August of 1961.

So why doesn't he produce the long-form? For what reason? To appease the nutjobs? As if it would. The charlatan over at Free Republic identifying himself as “Polarik” and criminally referring to himself as a “Doctor” would come out with another cockamamie report that this document too is a forgery. Let the birthers continue this charade. It is very entertaining and good for laughs.

I voited for Obama, but these folks' claims have merit.

Remember that the Constituition (for whatever reason) does *not* say that the person must be a citizen (lots and lots of citizens are not eligble to be President, including my father, who is a citizen but who immigrated here many years ago.)

No, the Constitution says the person must be “natural born.” This is actually a pretty high standard.

So being able to get a passport is not sufficient. Lots of people with US passports are not eligble. My father has a passport.

Having a document proving that you were “live born” is not sufficient. Again, lots of people have documents from state governments, but are not eligible to be President.

We need to look at this with intellectual honesty. If this were a Republican President with the same “problem,” would we belittle the arguments?

On what grounds do the claims have merit?

It is widely accepted by the vast majority of legal scholars that US birth confers Natural Born Citizen status. Obama has an official document that says not just that he was “live born,” but that he was born in Honolulu.

So, on what grounds do the claims have merit?

Good data Marie.

17 years ago my bother applied and become an FBI agent. His background investigation REQUIRED that he provide them with his ORIGINAL birth certificate and a copy of mine.

This is basic background data. If Federal agents are required to provide HARD COPY ORIGINALS – then the President should be requred as well.

Further, why is Obama activting fighting discolusre of these and other records re his place of birth? Because he is a competle FRAUD. This is obvious to anyone who can handle the truth.

And you will NOT get the truth from Obama, he's political criminal fraud from Chicago. Just look at his White House tribe of crooks.

First, by saying that the claims have merit, I am not saying that the claims are true — only that they could, might, may, have a non-unreasonable chance of being true and do deserve investigation.

Discounting them out of hand is simply not looking at the issue objectively. I do not believe anyone would handle non-political issues this way. For example, would you settle a real estate action over your (or your neighbor's) house without insisting on acquiring all of the relevant documents available at the courthouse? Any lawyer representing you could (should!) be sued for malpractice if not acquiring them. BTW, most people would look suspiciously at someone trying to hide a deed.

I totally agree that US birth confers natural born. So? I'm not sure I've seen anyone that disagrees with that. (Well, OK, perhaps some of the more shrill folks out there may :-)

The next sentence about “official document that says that … ” is the point at which there is a *lot* of argument. That's the crux and can not just be waved away.

Again, look at this from a neutral, non-political perspective.

OK, fair enough.

But which path do you take — the document's a forgery? He lost his citizenship in Indonesia? Something else? There may be “a *lot* of argument” in terms of quantity, but I haven't seen any with any merit.

Care to advance one that appeals to you?

The facts are so simple, yet the liberal ignoramuses push bs around every corner. Obama is ineligible for one reason above others; his father was a foreigner. This disqualifies him. What do you people not understand about that? The reason no court will here it is plain and simple, they know if they do, Obama will be disqualified and riots will break out. Are you dummies so ignorant that you can't determine what the Constitution meant by Natural Born Citizen? Up until womens rights, the definition was that the father had to be a citizen at the time of birth. Duh; otherwise you could have; well you could have what you have now, DUAL ALLEGIENCES.

Grow some brains and some testicles and educate and inform; don't just push bs around. This months WND Whistleblower will set you straight. Do you people now still not understand that Obama is ineligible, not because he wasn't born in Hawaii, but because his father was a Kenyan.

Sure. The easiest, most trivial question to ask, but the one I haven't seen any one give a solid answer: “*Why* won't Obama release the original?” I have not seen a compelling answer.

Most of the answers I've seen have been along the lines of “Well, because he doesn't have to.”

To me, that alone indicates merit in the sense of there being something worth fighting to hide. (Mr. Smith trying to hide the deed to his house — sure, Mr. Smith has been living there 40 years and no one has ever claimed Mir. Smith doesn't own the house… but, hmmm…. maybe Mr. Smith really doesn't have title after all. We'll never know (in a positive sense) because Mr. Smith won't show us the deed. On the other hand, we will never know that Mr. Smith does *not* own the house. We'll just always have doubts. Still, why does Mr. Smith do this?)

Interestingly, and unfortunately, this will haunt Obama forever (or at least until the archivists get hold of stuff :-). Reminiscent of so many other political stoies — Andrew Jackson and the legitimacy of his marriage to Rachel. Thomas Jeffereson and his bearing children by Sally Hemmings (proven about 200 years after the fact). And on and on and on.

Seems that every President has something in his closet. But, I guess we all do :-)

What's unique about this one (as well as Chester Arthur) is that it's a Constitutional skeleton. And it sets precedent. The precedent being set now is that we don't need solid and deep documentation — cursory documents and statements and lots and lots of spin are sufficient. (A lot less documentation available in 1880 regarding Arthur, and some precedent was set there, btw).

This is all very ironic for the United States — arguably the world's most paper-trail and document obsessed country. Think about the required records for real estate, medical records, financial, corporate, and tax transactions, etc. This includes voter rolls. (Gun lists, well,…. :-) Part of the reason the above example with Mr. Smith is so compelling — we can relate to it so easily.

Yet for political office, especially Constitutionally mandated requirements…. Nada. Actually kind of bizarre. But it really rolls back to political will. (BTW, wait until something pops up with other Congressional requirements, e.g., age or residency or proof of citizenship for a Hispanic candidate… That will also be fun :-)

Anyway, think about a future Republican claiming to be natural born. Say, for instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2012 pulling out a fuzzy xerox of a family bible showing that, though he was raised in Austria, he was really born in New York City while his parents were on vacation there. “Wow, I didn't even realize it until last Thrusday. The original was burned in a fire in 1972, but fortunately, my dear Mom rescued this copy of one page. Well, now I can be the Presidenator!” No further documentation needed. My! Wasn't that miraculous! Wow! What timing! Yep, Arnold was cleaning his attic and just happend to find it. The radio spin meisters and Arnold supporters are all over it. Anyone who disagrees that it shows Arnold is native born is simply unAmerican. Whadya mean you don't believe it? No, you certainly may not see Arnold's birth certificate– the family Bible is good enough for courts and his birth certificate is private. Why back in 2008 that argument was good enough for Obama. Why is this any different? America — what a country! :-)

The Arnold example won't happen — and indeed it will probably be another 100 years or so before anything releated to a “natural born controversy” happens in Presidential politics (that's been the average for the US so far).

And I'm pleased with Obama in office over McCain. My concern is more the attitude towards Constitutional requirements and process. As a country, we often seem to trend more to pragmatic, non-boat-rocking actions (think Bush v. Gore). And those actions tend to weaken and undermine the Constitution and laws in general. We can mold and interpret the Constitution to fit what's popular at the time. (Admittedly, we've been doing that since the beginning, but that's a whole other discussion.)

The resulting scenario is rather like sports referees calling the game the way the crowd wants to see it, not the way the rule book spells it out.

Don't let the shrillness and obvious political motives of most of the folks calling for deeper information confuse the issues here. From a non-political perspective, the calls still have merit.

I'll start caring about Obama's birth certificate right after some shows a similar document stating that Sarah Palin is in fact the mother of little retarded Tripp….

I thought the argument was going to be about Obama's eligibility to hold office.

The Certification of Live Birth, to be sure, does not contain all of the birth data in the State of Hawaii's database of vital information. But it is prima facie evidence of the data that it does contain — namely, the date and place of Obama's birth. Unless there is something invalid about the document, it is solid proof that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and old enough to be President; I don't think his residency is in question. Therefore he is qualified.

If you want to make the argument that he has “something worth fighting to hide,” go ahead. But I thought you felt there was merit to the arguments that he's not qualified for the presidency, and you've done nothing so far to advance that case.

Ah, there's the argument again. Obama doesn't need to show the documents because he doesn't have to.

Can't seem to take the discussion away from passion and politics….

This is circular and does not provide any closure. And unfortunately very bad precedence. And so the controversy will continue….

Sigh.

LOL — no, that's not what I said.

What I said was, do you have any argument with his eligibility to hold office? If so, what is it?

That's a perfectly straightforward question, reflecting neither passion nor politics.

The discussion for eligibility hinges on Obama's being natural born.

Until all of the documentation is available, no one can argue convincingly either way

It is likely that producing the document will prove conclusively that Obama is indeed natural born.

Indeed, that is my expectation. There may be something embarrasing, but probably not at the level of a constitutional crises.

I am concerned with process and precedence.

Still, why the fear? These are simple requests. There is clearly and undeniably fear.

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

“Until all of the documentation is available, no one can argue convincingly either way.”

No, that's simply not true. The power of prima facie evidence is that if nothing is brought to oppose it, it stands. Period.

I ask again, do you have anything to oppose it, other than vague suppositions that there's some secret being hidden?

Sigh. Again, we're going in circles….

You say the document that's there is good enough.

I say there may, perhaps, possibly, perchance, concieveably, might just be more documents that reveal other things.

Technical, legalistic arguments to hide truth remind me of recent strident attempts by certain procesecutors to suppress exculaptory DNA evidence to uphold old capital convictions. Technically, legally, and perhaps even politically, they may be correct. But morally and intellectually correct?

I don't believe we'll resolve this. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, I recognize that the arguments are effectively moot (though I still hold they have merit) in that no court will touch this for much the same rationale used in Bush v Gore — no court wants to possibly percipitate a constitutional crisis; indeed courts will do what it takes to avoid one, even if doing so “bends” things somewhat. In this case, it's simpler to maintain status quo. As we're already seeing, courts are twisting themselves into knots to avoid accepting any relevant cases.

Meanwhile, I leave you with the following: Look deep, deep, deep within yourself. Would you, honestly, take the same view if this were George W Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

“I say there may, perhaps, possibly, perchance, concieveably, might just be more documents that reveal other things.”

Absolutely. That is true of pretty much every situation on the face of the earth. We make our decisions based on available evidence and common sense, knowing that a surprise could conceivably emerge at any turn.

However, “may, perhaps, possibly, perchance, concieveably, might” is a might long way from “these folks' claims have merit,” which is the statement of yours that I took — and continue to take — issue with.

“Would you, honestly, take the same view if this were George W Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger?”

Yes. I absolutely would.

Look around you. See who believes in the “birth certificate controversy” and who does not.

I can absolutely guarantee you that if I ever found myself in such an isolated fringe minority, with the huge majority of the population across the political spectrum opposed, I would accept that the error was most likely mine.

Its funny when liberal media apparently call me an 'Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorist' when i am only looking for the truth, in fact THEY are actually the 'hiding the evidence experts' along with Hawaii Officials who have put the document in a safe.
The day this document is brought to the light is probably the day Obama can no longer be president….

It's very simple. Either he was born in Hawaii or he wasn't. If he was – and there is no evidence to the contrary – then, no matter where his parents were born, he is a “natural born” US citizen. If he wasn't, prove it! The Kenyan birth theory can be easily debunked by finding out if his mother ever left the United States. As far as I know she never even had a passport until 1966.

Re. his Indonesian step-father, a child does not have to choose or relinquish citizenship until they reach legal maturity. Unless Obama gave up his American citizenship, and no evidence exists of such an act, and unless he directly chose another country's citizenship, he remains a US citizen.

This is such bunk

So… what you are saying is that if a couple from, say, Japan, were here on vacation, and while here the woman gave birth to a child, that child would be a natural born citizen of America, even though his parents are Japanese and have Japanese citizenship?

So… what you are saying is that if a couple from, say, Japan, were here on vacation, and while here the woman gave birth to a child, that child would be a natural born citizen of America, even though his parents are Japanese and have Japanese citizenship?