The Shaming of Lou Dobbs

By
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Alex Koppelman is a must-read on the subject of Lou Dobbs, and his decision to trust the incredibly strange, discredited conspiracy theories of people like Orly Taitz over the word of the government of Hawaii.

When he brought Keyes and Taitz on his show, he mentioned that he’d asked Taitz, off-air, whether the release of a long form birth certificate would satisfy her. “She said no,” Dobbs told his audience, and then directed the question to her again. “Both parents have to be citizens in order to satisfy the requirements of natural-born citizen,” Taitz responded. In other words, for the de facto leader of the movement, her questions can never go away, because Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of his son’s birth.

Dobbs, who won a Peabody Award in 1987, is effectively destroying his career with this stuff.

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

190 Comments

Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

Dobbs won a peabody award in 1987, hasn't done jack squat since.


Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

Taitz is a discredited ambulance chaser who isn't even allowed to practice law outside of California after she attended law school by mail.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

Dobbs destroyed his reputation when he stopped being a business reporter and went full-bore anti-Mexican crusader. I hope this nonsense does destroy his career, but I sincerely doubt it will.


Matthew Weaver
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

It is interesting, almost comical, that Obama supporters defend him by ridiculing his critics when they can simply resolve the matter and move on by producing the long-form of the birth certificate. Equally disheartening, to be honest, is that only fringe critics are pursuing the matter. Obama has something to hide in his birth certificate and later citizenship and travels (e.g., to Pakistan as a student in the early 1980s and his adoption and presumed citizenship in Indonesia). Once this eventually comes out, whether he can remain in office or not, the mainstream will jump on the bandwagon as if they were critics all along.

Good for Dobbs in being open to questioning Obama's eligibility to be president. Until Obama produces his long-form birth certificate and answers other relevant questions, this matter cannot be closed.


m
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

Thank God somebody in the MSM is finally covering this story, instead of covering it up.
Barry Hussein Soetoro will go down in history as an ignomineous fraud,
And all you dupes can do is squeeze you eyes tighter and chuckle.
Examine the evidence.
Quite using “factcheck”.org as your oracle.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

It is interesting, almost comical, that Obama supporters defend him by ridiculing his critics when they can simply resolve the matter and move on by producing the long-form of the birth certificate.

No they can't. The State of Hawaii only issues COLBs. A COLB is more than enough proof for any court in the land. You are a lying crazy ass birther.

Equally disheartening, to be honest, is that only fringe critics are pursuing the matter.

Thanks for identifying yourself as a fringe critic. Know what the fringe is for? Crazy people.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

Quite using “factcheck”.org as your oracle.

Stop presenting us with facts! We have a lunatic conspiracy to promote here!


Cymraeg
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

I used to follow Lou Dobbs and thought he was a very good reporter. But then he started on undocumented Mexican immigrants (no mention of those from India, China, Russia, etc.). Now he invites Orly Taitz, who seems to be inflicted with racism, OCD and delusions of grandeur,, to appear on his show. I see this as strong evidence that he is a racist also. I no longer watch him. I am convinced that a person cannot be very intelligent when they let their dark emotions override their thinking brain.


m
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

Facts are just what we need,
not more pablum regurgitated from quasi-authoritative liberal facades


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

We know you're happy relying on what the voices in your head tell you, but some of us need our facts to have some basis in reality. Crazy ass birther.


mandersen
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

It is well known and not disputed by anyone that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. What fewer know is that this means Obama is not a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born. The ad hominem attacks against Taitz are yet another of the increasingly lame attempts to protect the false messiah from his inevitable fall, either due to his Marxist economics, or, could we hope, the actual enforcement of the law.


chuckles1954
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

All Obama has to do is show the BC!!!! Lou Dobbs has nothing to do with anything other than raising the story about 50 million people are talking about. I don't care about the lawyer or Dobbs. Why is Obama spending millions to NOT show what anyone applying for a job has to show?
Ranting on Dobbs and the lawyer is a ruse to misgude your attention, no matter how short it spans.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

It is well known and not disputed by anyone that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen.

True.

What fewer know is that this means Obama is not a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born.

False.

Crazy ass birther.


mandersen
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

Mantis, you are misinformed. State of Hawaii issues COLB's for foreign-born children of American parents, or in certain other circumstances. There IS a long form birth certificate, but increasingly looks like it's from Mombasa, not Hawaii, as his closest living Kenyan relatives have always said. And, by the way, the COLB posted at Kos was quickly shown a fraud, so it ought NOT to fool a court. Suggest you save your hostility for the oppressive Marxist government you helped into power.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

All Obama has to do is show the BC!!!!

He already has.

Why is Obama spending millions to NOT show what anyone applying for a job has to show?

He's not.

Crazy ass birther.


aarrgghh
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

comment of the year:

“i'll tell you, in all my years in law enforcement, a black man always needed more identification then anyone else. i never thought it would extend to the POTUS!

lol.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

“the word of the government of Hawaii”???

That's consisted of Okubo's conflicting and misleading statements and a completely ambiguous statement that didn't verify where BHO was born.

Has Weigel been picking up different statements from the fillings in his teeth or something?


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

State of Hawaii issues COLB's for foreign-born children of American parents, or in certain other circumstances.

Yeah, but they don't say the children were born in Honolulu. Obama's does. FAIL

There IS a long form birth certificate, but increasingly looks like it's from Mombasa, not Hawaii,

Things you imagine don't count, crazy ass birther.

as his closest living Kenyan relatives have always said.

No they haven't.

And, by the way, the COLB posted at Kos was quickly shown a fraud, so it ought NOT to fool a court.

Only to crazy ass birthers.

Suggest you save your hostility for the oppressive Marxist government you helped into power.

Workers of the world unite! Crazy ass birther.


m
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

“Crazy ass birther”

My God man, please please stop overwhelming me with your crushing ad hominim attacks!!!
LOL
You claim to side with the facts, yet logical methodical reasoning is missing from your repertoire…


IbnAswad
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

How does President Obama's father not being a U.S. citizen have anything to do with where he was born? Any person born in the contiguous United States, Hawaii, or Alaska, or any of it's territories or possession's is either a US National or Citizen. The conferance of citizenship is based on the geographic place of birth not on the status of the parents. As a matter of fact a person born to two undocumented residents of the United States in the sovereign confines of a US state or territory is legally considered a natural born citizen of the USA. Other countries are not so generous but at the moment and since the signing of the US Constitution that has been the case with the sovereign confines of the USA. So again, how exactly does the fact the President Obama's father was/is Kenyan have anything to do with negating the fact that he was in fact born on the island of Oahu, in the soveriegn United States state of Hawaii, on August 4th 1961 at 7:40PM?


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

At least what I write is grammatical, and coherent. Crazy ass birther.


cymraeg
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

To: m

What are we to use as a source of info? WND (which BTW is owned and operated by an Arab), looney tunes Queen Orly (She has little understand of due process, stare decisis, the 14th Amendment, jurisdiction of courts, standing, jurisdiction of subject matters, the Federal Rules of Procedure, Constitutional law), Andy Martin, Philip Berg, and the rest of those kooks?


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

Actually, the person who claimed it was a fake was proved to be a fake. Also, the foreign-born COLB would show the person was foreign born, not born in Hawaii. But, of course, let's not let true facts get in the way of delusional ones. Back in 1961 Obama must of spent a ton of his election money to get his birth announcement put in the paper, knowing, of course, that he would be elected president…and all of the state of Hawaii was proud to follow this course. Nutty Birthers.


strangely_enough
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

'When he brought Keyes and Taitz on his show, he mentioned that he’d asked Taitz, off-air, whether the release of a long form birth certificate would satisfy her. “She said no,”'
She is, like yourself, nothing if not representative of your lunatic movement.


strangely_enough
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

“You claim to side with the facts, yet logical methodical reasoning is missing from your repertoire…”
Oh god, the irony! It burns!!1!


strangely_enough
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

Okubo has been consistent in her statements. You all, not so much.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

No she hasn't. On one Politifact page she says one thing at the top and the opposite at the bottom. On the same page!

And, she won't confirm her earlier statement in which she claimed he was born there, instead saying that she's not qualified to speak to this issue. She's either lying or incompetent, Dave. Oh, sorry, did I call you Dave?


joe
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

“All Obama has to do is show the BC!!!!
He already has.

No, he hasn't . He showed a CERTIFICATION that cann't be used in most states to put your kid in public school.

“”Why is Obama spending millions to NOT show what anyone applying for a job has to show?” He's not. Crazy ass birther.”

You're right – he's only spent about SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.(stupid obamunist)


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

On one Politifact page she says one thing at the top and the opposite at the bottom.

No she doesn't. Lying crazy ass birther.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

Great, let's use methodical reasoning. Back in 1961, the Obama's knew their son would be elected president in 2008, so they planted false newspapers announcements and got the whole state of Hawaii to follow along with their ruse…since they were a powerful Hawaiin family. Now M, would you show me the proof…or is it one-sided and only the people who believe he was born in Hawaii must provide proof? You've shown none except opinions.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

No, he hasn't . He showed a CERTIFICATION that cann't be used in most states to put your kid in public school.

Liar. He has showed an official Hawaii birth certificate. It's the only kind they give out anymore, and it is universally accepted by every government entity. You are a liar.

You're right – he's only spent about SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Only if you believe every spam birther email you get. Lying crazy ass birthers made that up. You believe it because you're deranged and rather stupid.


MatthewWeaver
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

Using Wikipedia or Factcheck for a source is about as lame as offering a copy of a short-form birth certificate for identification. All three are doubtful. The long-form will resolve most immediate questions. Further, the question of natural born may still be valid as the citizenship of the parents still matters. Especially, as Obama apparently was adopted in Indonesia. As well, he traveled with foreign passports as a foreign citizen and not as an American. He may have even attended college as a foreign student. My recollection from last year is that he even stated he did not get a US passport until 2004.

There are legit questions to be asked in a civil manner and in a civil forum. One has to wonder what Obama is hiding. I also wonder why everyone is so intent on closing down the whole line of questioning.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

Using Wikipedia or Factcheck for a source is about as lame as offering a copy of a short-form birth certificate for identification.

However the voices in the heads of crazy ass birthers would never lie!

Especially, as Obama apparently was adopted in Indonesia.

No he wasn't, and even if he had been, it would not have affected his United States citizenship.

As well, he traveled with foreign passports as a foreign citizen and not as an American.

Got any evidence of this? Didn't think so.

He may have even attended college as a foreign student.

He may be a space alien, too. He's not, but don't let that stop you from believing it.

My recollection from last year is that he even stated he did not get a US passport until 2004.

Your recollection is as faulty as your critical thinking skills. He moved overseas at age six. You need a passport for that, moron.

There are legit questions to be asked in a civil manner and in a civil forum.

Really? How come you haven't come up with any yet?

I also wonder why everyone is so intent on closing down the whole line of questioning.

No one is shutting anything down. We're ridiculing you crazy ass birthers because you're deranged.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

Hey Joe, see you're delusional too. The certificate he has shown is the same one given to EVERYONE who requests a copy of his Bc and has been used in all states to get the kids into school…you have shown nothing that says it can't except in your mind.

The millions he is spending is just a figment of your imagination…with all the reporting requirements for politicians, can you show me where he has spent that money hiding his true birth? No, you can't, because the only place the money is being spent is in your mind.

No matter what he shows, you nuts will just call it fake and go back to your delusional lives…so sad.

Nutty Birthers


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

Hey Matt, I like that. Now that you've complained where others get their facts, how about you give up the sources for your facts? Instead of just aping the company line and blowing off real proof, give us yours. But, opinion is not proof…so only the verifiable facts please. Links to those facts would be a great change of pace for your group also.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

24ahead…show me. I just read the articles and she's said the same thing throughout. Did you actually read the articles or are you just relying on an spam e-mail?


fuzed
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

Thanks Birthers! Keep it up. Hopefully Orly will soon lead you to a perfect world, where all the facts align with your thoughts. Please make sure you get everyone, but in the meantime, go ahead and make it a plank of the Republican party. hahahahah.


kdh666
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

Interesting topic, it's nice to see we can still have a rational disscution in this country. Maybe it's time to solve all of these disagreements with a nice freindly civil war. red states against blue.


disbar_the_birfoon_lawyer
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

Crushing win by the Dems in 2008 elections–FABULOUS!

Republicans embracing the birthers–PRICELESS!

So far, it is shaping up to be a great year for the Dems, keep up the terrific work birfoons, the Democrats are soooo grateful…

Way to discredit your own party birfoons! Nice job.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

Are you paid by the word or something?

This appears near the middle of politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii

We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real. “It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

Then, near the end, they tuck this in:

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.” Still, she acknowledges: “I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

What a credible source!


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

1. Anyone who still trusts anything in WP hasn't been paying attention. There are just some of their many issues here.

2. Obviously, BHO cultists – perhaps including those who are paid by the DNC, OBA, or similar – are engaged in a campaign to silence a discussion of this issue through posting content-free comments or those that lie or mislead. They don't provide a valid counter-argument, they just fill up space in an attempt to prevent others from having a grown-up discussion of this issue.


birfers are so dumb
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 12:46 am

Lying crazy ass birther prince.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

She said it about an image…not the original. And that's just because it was an e-mail image and not the true form sent to Obama. But, of course, you want to quit reading then because it fills your needs…

“There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact's conclusion that the candidate's name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn't authentic.”

That part escape you?


mandersen
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

Regarding your question: How does President Obama's father not being a
U.S. citizen have anything to do
with where he was born?

It doesn't. A “natural born citizen” as required in the U.S.
Constitution, for the President, and defined in law that has existed
unchanged since before the Constitution was written, is not decided by
the location of birth but by the citizenship of the parents. That is
why John McCain, born in Panama to American citizens while his father
was in the US military, is a “natural born citizen” and Obama is not.

Quoting Disqus <>:


John
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

Mantis, why are you such a dick? I believe Obama is a U.S Citizen, but I also believe in the right of others to question that when there exists reasonable doubt. Afterall, reasonable doubt is all that stands in the way of guilt or innocence in a court of law.


mandersen
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

Sorry, Jim. The fake COLB is disproven by publicly available
information; font, pattern mis-match and a half dozen other features
taken directly from the fake certicate, and not by one mere person.
Save your hate for the Marxist tyranny you installed in power.

Quoting Disqus <>:


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

LOL!!! 24Ahead, that's really funnier than s**t. Isn't it great how they give links to Wiki and Snopes but then claim Obama doesn't know which hospital he was born in…with NO LINKS!!! I don't know about you, but that says the article you linked has more to hide than POTUS. And definitely much less to provide to a quality to this discussion.

Again 24, give me proof, not opinions. You want to discuss, discuss with proof. Not Right-wing nut sites, Rush Limbaugh, and definitely no Orly!!!


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

Mantis, why are you such a dick?

Crazy idiots need to be put in their place.

I believe Obama is a U.S Citizen, but I also believe in the right of others to question that when there exists reasonable doubt.

I believe in the right of others to question even when there are no reasonable doubts. I also believe in my right to ridicule them for the deranged maniacs they are. See, equal rights for everyone. And the doubts of birthers are far from reasonable.


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

Obviously, BHO cultists – perhaps including those who are paid by the DNC, OBA, or similar – are engaged in a campaign to silence a discussion of this issue through posting content-free comments or those that lie or mislead.

You see, the fact that you think we're all paid agents reveals what a paranoid conspiracy theorist you are, whose mind has lost all connection to reality.

They don't provide a valid counter-argument

Oh but we do, time and time again, but you just pretend it never happened and repeat the same lies over and over again. Crazy ass birther.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

Show me, Manderson, don't tell me. If this is all so public, you should have no problem bringing it up for me. Otherwise, it's just a marxist attitude to say believe what I say and don't question. SHOW ME THE CONCLUSION, because once you do, I'll be able to disprove it…no problem.


chuckles1954
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

He has defended several suits, even to the SCOTUS to keep from showing his BC. That costs money, and from last estimate, around $1million. He hasn't shown a BC that shows anything!! A Cert of Live Birth shows nothing!!. If ANYONE could show a BC, there wouldn't be a problem, would there? He also has all of his college records sealed. If he's a genius, he would show them, wouldn't he? Remember AlGore? After convincing everyone he's a genus, he flunked out of Seminary. Was he born Barack Obama, or Barry Dunham? Did he change his name from Barry Soreto to Barack in college? Why? Has he ever been arrested for coke snorting? When was his last snort? Did Frank Marshall Davis sodomize him as a child? Is Davis his father? Who financed his college if his mother was dirt poor? If a terrorist finaced his college, does he owe them favors now? If Americans weren't allowed to go to Pakistan in the '80's, what passport did he use to go there? American's can't use Indonesian passports to travel.
Just asnswer a few questions rather than just call me a crazy ass birther. Name calling just means you lost the argument.
I can tell you this, if he weren't POTUS, he couldn't pass the security test for a federal employee.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

Manderson, now you need to make stuff up? That's why you keep losing in every court case and public opinion that comes up. You really need to understand that Orly Taitz does not know or understand the law.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


chuckles1954
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

This “lunatic movement” is gathering steam because there ARE NO ANSWERS! Just show the damn BC and be done with it. Like I said in my post, I don't care about the lawyer, Keyes, or Dobbs, SHOW THE BC AND ALL WILL BE WELL. If he can't, this country will come apart and you don't even know the meaning of “lunatic” . There will be millions of them overthrowing the illegal fascist government he has assembled.
Don't you think if he could put this to rest, he would hold a prime time news conference to do it? Not discussing it, is not going to work much longer. Name calling NEVER works.


Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

Your idiotic comment ignores very pertinent facts

a) You have no real evidence supporting your lies about him not being born in America
b) People like Squirrely Taint have already gone on record as saying that they don't care what the birth certificate says because they won't believe it anyway.
c) The shifting justification for the demand for the BC just proves that birfoons have no intention of letting facts get in their way.
d) You seriously overestimate your own importance if you believe that Obama has a duty to prove to your personal satisfaction where he was born.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

The WND article I link to has plenty of links.

In my post, the conflicting WP edits are listed. To see those, simply look in the history tab at the WP page. Even bright grade-schoolers could figure that out, but obviously not the BHO cultists.


Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

You are essentially arguing that citizens should be forbidden from having any privacy on any issue in their lives unless they are “hiding” things.

By your logic the police should be able to walk into your house without permission and search it without a warrant. After all, you wouldn't demand a reason for the search unless you are HIDING something, right?


Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

Hot damn, we are getting paid? How come nobody told me?


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

As Nancy Grace would rush to tell you: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

The fact that Politifact keeps misleading as do all the other BHO cultists isn't a good sign vis-a-vis their credibility.


Jim
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

Oh, yes, 24, call me names. That gets your point across. I'm one of the swing voters the pubs need to return in order to recapture the white house and all I'm seeing is a bunch of paranoid people like you…why would I want to vote for pubs again in my lifetime?

Unfortunately, for you, even not-so-bright grade-schoolers could figure out Obama was born in Hawaii and a group of delusional people following a third-rate lawyer need to find another hobby…


mantis
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

He has defended several suits, even to the SCOTUS to keep from showing his BC.

No he hasn't. His lawyer has filed motions to dismiss (a very simple and inexpensive procedure) the many frivolous lawsuits brought by nutball birthers without standing and with zero evidence.

That costs money, and from last estimate, around $1million.

By estimate you mean “a number I just made up,” I guess.

He hasn't shown a BC that shows anything!!

Yes he has, you lunatic.

Was he born Barack Obama

Yes, it says so on his birth certificate, which you tell us shows nothing. Crazy ass birther. Your questions just get more insane, so I'm going to leave you to roll around in your own feces or whatever you lunatics do.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 2:01 am

I’m surprised she hasn’t been disbarred for malpractice with her garbled understanding of the law.


xcott
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 9:10 pm

That would be terribly unfair. Tax revenue from the blue states prop up the red states' economies. The blue states have a huge money advantage because of their productive output, while the red states rely heavily on agricultural subsidies and other such handouts.

If there was a civil war, the red states wouldn't be able to afford bullets unless they convinced other countries to subsidize their military spending. You know, just like the last civil war.


xcott
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

Why is it lame to use a reprint of your birth certificate for identification? That's what the document is used for.

Why would the state print them if they were invalid for identification or proof of birth?

“The long-form will resolve most immediate questions.” You mean most irrelevant questions. The short form establishes what the birthers are denying: that the president was born in the USA, specifically Honolulu. What do you need from the long form? Is the name of the doctor who performed the delivery somehow relevant to the question of citizenship?


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

You demo commies are stoopid.

You state that Barry was born in “Hawaii”. a supposed “state”. I have never been to this so called “Hawaii” have you? What proof can you offer me that such a place even exists? Just because some web sites have “maps” that show this place is proof of how wide spread this conspiracy is!

wake up people and use some common sense!


xcott
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

“It is well known and not disputed by anyone that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. What fewer know is that this means Obama is not a natural born citizen, no matter where he was born.”

Does that mean George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not eligible to be president?


xcott
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

Orly's comment may seem weirdly schizophrenic: declaring in advance that the evidence she's asking for will never convince her—but it makes perfect sense.

You have to understand that this is not a conspiracy theory, it's a denial movement. It's not a belief system, but a calculated effort to promote disinformation. In that sense it's perfectly rational to ask for a piece of evidence, only to ignore it and ask for the next piece of evidence.

Orly doesn't want the evidence: she wants to repeatedly ask for it, and never get it. This creates the false impression of a cover-up by the government, which is what the birther movement wants. It's not much different from 9/11 truthers repeatedly asking for an impartial investigation into WTC-7, ignoring the fact that they already got one. They don't *want* the investigation, see, they just want to repeatedly ask for one.


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

Hey libs!

you cant handle the truch about Barry Sotero

here is a link to his kenyan birth certificate

http://slicedbreadtwo.com/images/uploads/COLMKB…


fendertele
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

Dobbs is an embarrassment to CNN. These are the same nuts who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. The real republicans are cringing now knowing they'll never be able to get their party back.


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

Geeze you athiest libs!

Its a well known fact that Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to Church every Sunday.


captainsteve
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

Lou Dobbs is a patriot!

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!


Johnkel
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

I believe the simplist reason that many Americans denounce and rebut the claims by conspiracy theorists such as the Birthers is that if you don't clearly speak out against lies, disinformation, and outright delusion, you give legitimacy to falsehood and encourage disobedience to the principles upon which our country was founded. Our nation was established upon the rational rule of law. What folks such as the Birthers do when they try to spread conspiracy theories is to undermine that reasonable foundation. Our system of governance and laws has already proven beyond any reasonable doubt that President Obama is a legal citizen of the United States from birth. The Birthers don't want to accept that. If they don't want to accept those facts presented by our legal and political systems, then the door is open for them to not accept many other things, i.e. whether we landed on the moon, whether the Holocaust happened, or whether they have to pay taxes. At some point, if you don't check such delusional dissension, then you run the risk of having the functioning of society affected by their irrational behavior.
In the end the Birthers are wrong, and nothing will dissuade them from what they want to believe. But it is our responsibility as rational citizens to rebut them so they don't spread their lies and delusion, because a society at the mercy of every irrationality is not the future we want to give our children.


JohnC
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

Many birthers cannot be convinced of Obama's citizenship, because they don't WANT to be convinced, regardless of the evidence.

But I do think there are some rational people out there who give some credence to birther theories simply because they want to see themselves as fair minded. These people have been wooed by birthers who claim that statutes and case law prove that Obama isn't a natural born citizen (false), that reliable evidence demonstrates he wasn't born in Hawaii (false), that he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetero (false), or that Hawaii hasn't issued an official birth certificate stating that Obama was born in Hawaii (false). These are the people whom the birthers are counting on to mainstream their paranoid conspiracy views and pseduo-legal reasoning.


JohnC
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

Correction: Lou Dobbs THINKS he's a patriot. What he's really doing is spreading birther bull that seeks to delegitimize a legitimately elected President who was and is fully eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Dobbs can believe whatever he wants, but if some deranged lunatic acts to physically harm President Obama out of some misguided notion of patriotism, he'll have blood on his hands.

Remember, Tim McVeigh and his enablers thought he was a patriot, too.


JohnC
Comment posted July 22, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

That was a real knee-slapper… not.


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 12:08 am

You demo commies are stoopid.

You state that Barry was born in “Hawaii”. a supposed “state”. I have never been to this so called “Hawaii” have you? What proof can you offer me that such a place even exists? Just because some web sites have “maps” that show this place is proof of how wide spread this conspiracy is!

wake up lib commies and use some common sense!


captainsteve
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 1:45 am

Misguided notion of patriotism? Obama is authorizing the killing of Taliban leaders to support the rightful governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our constitutional government must be defended as well. Usurpers engaging in coups in violation of the constitution put themselves at risk. Millions of Americans know obama's a fraud. He should tell Hawaii and the courts to quit hiding for him and release the documents (and then resign). He thinks he's bigger than America. He's not. The people are! He thinks he's above the law. He's not!! This is OUR country and he better figure that out fast!!!


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 1:57 am

This is MY country, too, and I'm perfectly willing to defend it from the likes of self-appointed revolutionaries who threaten our legitimate government.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:07 am

Obama isn’t spending millions, or even thousands, to defend against birther suits. I’m sick of writing about this one at this point (on other threads), so I’ll just quote David Weigel, author of this article, from his companion article (“Birther Movement Dogs Republicans,” 7/17/2009) on this site:

“While birthers claim that the president’s lawyers have spent “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars” fighting their lawsuits, they’ve never provided evidence for that claim. Indeed, most of the suits have been tossed out of court on technicalities.”

Birthers don’t provide evidence. They ignore evidence and ask the same question over and over again. They don’t answer questions. They ask them. Over and over again. But it would be nice for the birthers if they thought they were causing President Obama to spend money. Well, I will throw you a bone. You ARE making him spend money. On buttered popcorn and soft drinks, while he turns on CNN, Hardball, The Rachel Maddow Show, and every other cable news channel that has exposed the birthers as the racist dead-ender ziplock-bag-birth-certificate-waving freaks that they are. But that can’t be more than about $50, even in Washington, D.C. So congratulations.

I guess it would be more fun for you people if we just played along. Should we do that? Should 1 am to 2 am be “Birther Hour” where we pretend that your conspiracy theories are better than our conspiracy theories and don’t ask any questions about yours if you don’t ask any questions about ours?

Wait, that’s no good. We don’t have any conspiracy theories. You people are just stupid.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:07 am

Obama isn’t spending millions, or even thousands, to defend against birther suits. I’m sick of writing about this one at this point (on other threads), so I’ll just quote David Weigel, author of this article, from his companion article (“Birther Movement Dogs Republicans,” 7/17/2009) on this site:

“While birthers claim that the president’s lawyers have spent “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars” fighting their lawsuits, they’ve never provided evidence for that claim. Indeed, most of the suits have been tossed out of court on technicalities.”

Birthers don’t provide evidence. They ignore evidence and ask the same question over and over again. They don’t answer questions. They ask them. Over and over again. But it would be nice for the birthers if they thought they were causing President Obama to spend money. Well, I will throw you a bone. You ARE making him spend money. On buttered popcorn and soft drinks, while he turns on CNN, Hardball, The Rachel Maddow Show, and every other cable news channel that has exposed the birthers as the racist dead-ender ziplock-bag-birth-certificate-waving freaks that they are. But that can’t be more than about $50, even in Washington, D.C. So congratulations.

I guess it would be more fun for you people if we just played along. Should we do that? Should 1 am to 2 am be “Birther Hour” where we pretend that your conspiracy theories are better than our conspiracy theories and don’t ask any questions about yours if you don’t ask any questions about ours?

Wait, that’s no good. We don’t have any conspiracy theories. You people are just stupid.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:13 am

Wow, chuckles. Drink some Ensure, and fast. With all that shit you just pulled out of your ass, you’re certain to be dehydrated and you’re going to suffer from lost minerals and electrolytes.

Haven’t you gotten tired of being dismantled by people like Matt Taylor, mantis, and other people by now? In case you’re wondering, we still haven’t gotten tired of watching it happen.

Where do you people get the stick-to-itiveness to keep coming back with these same tired sorry racist pretext arguments? If you worked this hard at keeping your jobs you wouldn’t be unemployed. If you worked this hard at your relationships you’d have fulfilling relationships…with your well-lotioned left hands. If you worked this hard at learning a first language, you’d be able to write passable English.

Get some real goals, in other words. “Bringing shame and embarrassment to all other conspiracy theorists in history” is not a goal.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:25 am

In the words of The Quitter, “say it ain’t so, Joe!”

“All Obama has to do is show the BC!!!!”

Wrong. All he has to do is stay President. Oops, with a nod to Morgan Freeman’s Joe in Lean on Me, all he has to do is stay President, stay black, and, eventually, like in 40 or 50 years, die (of natural causes). He doesn’t have to deliver his birth certificate to you or anyone else. If you think he shouldn’t have been allowed to be President, take it up with Chief Justice John Roberts, who is a Republican and is smarter than all the birthers put together plus Alan Keyes.

You people are funny. It’s not often that an adult in American society gets to mock other adults without having to feel bad for doing so. You can’t even pick on fat people anymore. But you can always pick on racists who lie about being racist but who are too dumb to hide it well.

President Obama showed what any Government office or agency, including without limitation any court of law, would consider definitive and conclusive as to anything contained therein. Hawaii, which has a Republican Governor, said his birth certificate, online for a year now, is authentic. Please please please quibble with my words; I’ve been loose here on purpose. Tell us what the difference is between “certificate” and “certification” but then somehow fail to understand ANYTHING else that you read in the entire world. It’s funny how closely you can read distinctions among birth certificate forms that have been used throughout decades, but you seem totally at sea when it comes to reading ANY operable laws or facts that have anything whatsoever to do with this non-issue.

Gee, I’ll make up a number and say that’s what President Obama has spent on legal fees. A million. Wait you said no made up numbers. Ok. I’ll try again. 700,000.

Read the articles on this site, birthers! David Weigel even reports in the “Birther Movement Dogs Republicans” article (7/17/2009) that the birthers have no evidence for the claim about money spent by Obama and in fact the cases have been thrown out of court as frivolous, thus no defense costs incurred.

It’s really sad to think of all the tax dollars we spend on education being thrown away to teach you kids that dinosaurs walked the Earth and stepped in human footprints, or that abstinence is the only sex education you need, or that Jesus loves everyone who looks like you and no one who doesn’t. Come into the light, children. Or at least have the good sense to run for the dark crevices like the cockroaches that you are whenever a normal person turns the light on. Because if you come into the light, you will get stepped on.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:25 am

In the words of The Quitter, “say it ain’t so, Joe!”

“All Obama has to do is show the BC!!!!”

Wrong. All he has to do is stay President. Oops, with a nod to Morgan Freeman’s Joe in Lean on Me, all he has to do is stay President, stay black, and, eventually, like in 40 or 50 years, die (of natural causes). He doesn’t have to deliver his birth certificate to you or anyone else. If you think he shouldn’t have been allowed to be President, take it up with Chief Justice John Roberts, who is a Republican and is smarter than all the birthers put together plus Alan Keyes.

You people are funny. It’s not often that an adult in American society gets to mock other adults without having to feel bad for doing so. You can’t even pick on fat people anymore. But you can always pick on racists who lie about being racist but who are too dumb to hide it well.

President Obama showed what any Government office or agency, including without limitation any court of law, would consider definitive and conclusive as to anything contained therein. Hawaii, which has a Republican Governor, said his birth certificate, online for a year now, is authentic. Please please please quibble with my words; I’ve been loose here on purpose. Tell us what the difference is between “certificate” and “certification” but then somehow fail to understand ANYTHING else that you read in the entire world. It’s funny how closely you can read distinctions among birth certificate forms that have been used throughout decades, but you seem totally at sea when it comes to reading ANY operable laws or facts that have anything whatsoever to do with this non-issue.

Gee, I’ll make up a number and say that’s what President Obama has spent on legal fees. A million. Wait you said no made up numbers. Ok. I’ll try again. 700,000.

Read the articles on this site, birthers! David Weigel even reports in the “Birther Movement Dogs Republicans” article (7/17/2009) that the birthers have no evidence for the claim about money spent by Obama and in fact the cases have been thrown out of court as frivolous, thus no defense costs incurred.

It’s really sad to think of all the tax dollars we spend on education being thrown away to teach you kids that dinosaurs walked the Earth and stepped in human footprints, or that abstinence is the only sex education you need, or that Jesus loves everyone who looks like you and no one who doesn’t. Come into the light, children. Or at least have the good sense to run for the dark crevices like the cockroaches that you are whenever a normal person turns the light on. Because if you come into the light, you will get stepped on.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:20 am

Mantis, you’re doing yeoman’s work here. Good on you.

Don’t you like how they reveal themselves to be full of it, without any prompting? “Only fringe critics are pursuing the matter.” And that tells us what, exactly, about the credibility of the birther argument?

Surely there cannot be ANY cash or fame to be made in the right-wing world for a good lawyer who has a valid degree from a “traditional” (read: not online correspondence) law school who would like to bring President Obama’s reign of terror to an end? No camera time would await any such hero who slayed the Muslim Usurper dragon. Undoubtedly, no books could be subsequently written by this mythical, as-yet-undiscovered, People’s Champion.

Because otherwise, you know, I’d expect to see a flood of right-wing lawyers just lining up to take birther cases, instead of Oily Taint and her band of disbarred and sanctioned misfits.

Excuse me, but I’m a lawyer. And I know for a fact that if there was the slightest truth to any of this, there would be 1,000 lawyers trying to kill the other 999 so each one could be the lead attorney on what would surely be the most momentous case in U.S. if not world history. So the birthers have to ask themselves some hard questions.

Actually, the only question birthers need ask is “how much longer can I avoid facing the fact that the U.S. President is a black man named Barack Hussein Obama?”

Like I said, thanks for whacking these moles every time they pop up. We’re reading and laughing and shaking our heads with you, buddy.


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:34 am

I think you’re right in the first sentence, mantis.

As to the second, I have less doubt than you do, but no certainty either way. I think this birther nonsense is five kinds of stupid. At least if you were a TV personality arguing on Palin’s behalf you could spout something about her being a fresh face or connecting with the base. But if you argue on behalf of the birthers, you’ve crossed a Rubicon of sorts and cannot be taken seriously by the rest of the world.

By the way “the rest of the world” explicitly excludes the subset of the population that will forgive Sarah Palin even if she posts a picture of herself to her Facebook page that shows her gnawing on a moose’s jawbone while she’s drunk and sitting on the toilet. I’m not talking about what those people think unless and until I see proof that they do think.

If there’s any justice, this nonsense will destroy Lou Dobbs’s career. He’s not just some Congressman in a safe seat (thanks to Tom DeLay and his redistricting). He actually has to get and retain viewers. And while some people will slow down to watch a car wreck, few people get out and help. I doubt anyone will be motivated to keep watching Lou Dobbs who only starts watching because of the birther thing. And I bet there are some people who have continued watching MOST of his show thus far (averting their gaze and plugging their ears when he bitches about Mexican immigrant labor, which destroys our economy by subsidizing it, I guess, not really clear on how that works) who will say “that’s the last straw, the man’s clearly stopped even TRYING to hide his racism, so I’m watching ESPN.”

Maybe wishful thinking. But I want to believe our marketplace of ideas will not buy what these people are selling. So far I’ve been right. Did you see Campbell get ripped apart on Hardball the other day?


Anonymous
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:34 am

I think you’re right in the first sentence, mantis.

As to the second, I have less doubt than you do, but no certainty either way. I think this birther nonsense is five kinds of stupid. At least if you were a TV personality arguing on Palin’s behalf you could spout something about her being a fresh face or connecting with the base. But if you argue on behalf of the birthers, you’ve crossed a Rubicon of sorts and cannot be taken seriously by the rest of the world.

By the way “the rest of the world” explicitly excludes the subset of the population that will forgive Sarah Palin even if she posts a picture of herself to her Facebook page that shows her gnawing on a moose’s jawbone while she’s drunk and sitting on the toilet. I’m not talking about what those people think unless and until I see proof that they do think.

If there’s any justice, this nonsense will destroy Lou Dobbs’s career. He’s not just some Congressman in a safe seat (thanks to Tom DeLay and his redistricting). He actually has to get and retain viewers. And while some people will slow down to watch a car wreck, few people get out and help. I doubt anyone will be motivated to keep watching Lou Dobbs who only starts watching because of the birther thing. And I bet there are some people who have continued watching MOST of his show thus far (averting their gaze and plugging their ears when he bitches about Mexican immigrant labor, which destroys our economy by subsidizing it, I guess, not really clear on how that works) who will say “that’s the last straw, the man’s clearly stopped even TRYING to hide his racism, so I’m watching ESPN.”

Maybe wishful thinking. But I want to believe our marketplace of ideas will not buy what these people are selling. So far I’ve been right. Did you see Campbell get ripped apart on Hardball the other day?


RedGraham
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 6:48 am

Yeah I guess you Obama people are right about birthers being crazy, racist, stupid, sorelosers. Just look at who some of them are: Pat Boone, Alan Keyes, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, best-selling author Jerome Corsi, numerous attorneys, numerous military officers, Lou Dobbs, at least eight percent of voters, the 400,000 Americans who signed the petitition for Obama to show his original Birth Certificate, Ron Paul & many other legislators. What a bunch of neo-nazi rednecks wearing tinfoil hats. You are right they probably believe the world is flat too. I mean really to question the COLB Obama posted is lunacy. They are the exact types of homophobic religious fanatics who should be herded into relocation camps where they can be re-educated.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:18 am

First of all, safety in numbers is no substitute for a rational argument. The State of Hawaii has issued a COLB to Obama. Hawaii officials are on the record as stating (just ask Dave Weigel) that the COLB IS Hawaii's official birth certificate. The long form is simply what the COLB derives its information from. The COLB states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and his birth was registered on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth. At that time, only children born on Hawaiian soil could be registered with the State of Hawaii. In addition, less than a week later, TWO Hawaiian large-circulation daily newspapers ran notices of Obama's birth. To any rational person, that's all you need. Unless, of course, you are faced with a person like Barack Hussein Obama II, who is of mixed race, has lived in foreign countries, and has a Muslim-sounding name. OF COURSE he can't be one of us, so the above information simply ISN'T ENOUGH to prove he isn't hiding something.

Now, let's look at the company you keep. Pat Boone? Since when would anyone give a rat's arse what he thinks. Why he doesn't stick to singing songs and weariing bad leather outfits is anyone's guess. (You forgot to mention another intellectual luminary, martial arts expert Chuck Norris). Alan Keyes – the most articulate person in the world who, despite his oratorical gifts is unable to string a single coherent thought together? Michael Savage, who is so offensive that the UK has banned him? Rush Limbaugh, that paragon of fair-minded non-partisan objectivity? Jerome Corsi, who wrote an error plagued book about Obama which was supposed to change the course of the 2008 campaign only to collapse under the weight of its own inconsistencies? Numerous attorneys, like future Supreme Court justices Philip Berg and Orly Taitz? Lou Dobbs, who runs with anything that has an immigrant angle to it? EIGHT percent of U.S. voters? Would these be fair minded independents or Obama-hating radicals who would have rather voted for Lyndon Larouche? 400,000 Americans – none of whom ever double-voted on the WND site? Ron Paul, who thinks the biggest problem facing America is inflation? Yikes! If these people were in my camp, I'd be forced to reconsider whatever it was I was for.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:30 am

Hey math whiz. I see that you got a new prescription for the meds. We are all very pleased you're taking them as directed.

Can you demonstrate again how President Obama is the Anti-Christ? I need a good laugh.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:36 am

Pretty impressive list of people. With all that credibility under one umbrella, why would you need to add Pat Boone?

Alan Keyes… hold on I'm trying to place him… Oh yeah. Isn't he the guy the GOP propped up to run against Obama for U.S. Senator for Illinois because Keyes is black? Didn't Keyes get his ass handed to him in that race? Might that be Keyes's motivation for going around trying to sue Obama (and losing in spectacular fashion) now?

Michael Savage…. really, you added Michael Savage to a list and expect that to count in your favor? For pity's sake I'll move on. Just read “Savage Nation” and try to avoid stabbing yourself in the ear with a letter opener to make the pain go away.

Whatever Rush Limbaugh is in favor of, I'll stand in the other line. Unless it's the elimination of criminal penalties for people who abuse prescription drugs like Oxycontin… I think Rush and I agree on that one.

But hey, TWO raving right wing talk radio shock jocks can't BOTH be wrong, can they? I mean, you threw Savage in there…

Tell me, who are these “numerous” military officers? You mean the disgraced hack Major Cook. Who else? Is “one guy” “numerous” in the birther movement?

Who knew that there were TWO best-selling authors named Jerome Corsi? The one I heard of is a thoroughly-discredited hack who makes no pretense at objectivity or actual reporting. So that's a neat coincidence.

And by “numerous” attorneys you are obviously referring to someone besides Orly Taitz, who got her degree via online correspondence, or the other birther lawyers, who, like Taitz, have been forced to pay sanctions for legal malpractice and filing frivolous suits, or in the case of Taitz's “law clerk,” have actually been disbarred? Yep, I hear Alan Dershowitz is clearing his plate so he can start representing birthers. Just as soon as he finishes an appeal for the Easter Bunny.

Wow, I'm surprised about Lou Dobbs. I figured he was too busy being racist against Mexican immigrants to have time to be racist against a black President. So it turns out Lou's a multi-tasker. Interesting.

Eight percent of voters? Sure you're not pulling that out of your ass? Link, please. At best you're talking about a poll, and I doubt you read it correctly.

400,000 Americans who signed the “petitition” for Obama to show his birth certificate… Two questions. One, what's a “petitition?” Two, how many people “signed” with an “X?” I would like to know how many real, distinct signatures there are. You people gave ACORN a hard time; prepare to reap the whirlwind. I bet there are 49 distinct signatures, and “Mickey Mouse” is written 399,951 times.

Don't lump Ron Paul in with birthers. Just because he doesn't like some things about government does not make him a racist conspiracy theorist.

Who are these “many other legislators?” Does that include the 10 GOP Congressmen who signed the birth certificate bill? I think that's 9, after seeing Campbell admit that he believes President Obama is a citizen on Chris Matthews's show yesterday. Is 9 funding-starved right wing nutjob Tom DeLay affirmative-action babies “many legislators” in your book?

I guess you birthers are right about…being birthers. Other than that you're really just crazy, racist, stupid sore losers. But you forgot dumbasses. That's a big one. But in your post, you really just come off as a sore loser. So I guess we should emphasize that.

Welcome to the thread. Glad you didn't bother to read anything, even the articles on THIS site about the birthers, before posting.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:44 am

Wow you pulled “apparently adopted in Indonesia” straight out of your ass. I'm surprised it fit up there, because that's also where you were keeping the “traveled with foreign passports” thing AND the “no passport until 2004″ comment.

You clearly made up the first two on your own or with help from fellow birthers. Did you maybe get that last one confused with the fact that Sarah Palin didn't have a passport until July 2007?

Obama had a passport since before Sarah Palin knew that there was a “New” Mexico.

Post links to your absurd made-up lies or be prepared to show your original long form birth certificate, and be sure the birth certificate isn't one that I will recognize as an obvious fake.

Please also explain how “posting the birth certificate a year ago, to address questions about his middle name” constitutes “closing down the whole line of questioning,” especially considering the State of Hawaii (with a Republican Governor in office as we speak) has continuously rejected all the conspiracy theorist nonsense and continuously affirmed the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate as posted online for a year.

Thanks. Appreciate it.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:50 am

Far-right birthers are so obsessed with their cult of ideologues that they have actually come to believe that anyone outside of their circle would even be the slightest bit impressed by such a pathetic list of carnival barkers.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:50 am

I'm with you, Matt. Where do I sign to get my check released? I've just been doing it for the fun of seeing birthers wriggle.

A birther named d2i already tried the “everyone who disagrees with my conspiracy theory is in on the conspiracy” thing, in the comments section of the “Birther Movement Dogs Republicans” article. These birthers are Stoics compared to the paranoia d2i had, but the thread is young… there's still time.

Tell me, Matt, I haven't checked recently. Is President Obama still the President? Yeah? Oh ok. Well, is he still black? Shit, really? I'd have thought the birthers would have fixed that by now. Lemme know when something develops. I'm busy working on getting the Loch Ness Monster supporters the same public relations firm the Birthers use.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:51 am

I'm assuming the list is a joke, right?


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:52 am

Curious here, Jim. Does “mocking the delusional people who follow a third rate lawyer because they hope it will further their sore-loser racist xenophobe agenda” constitute a valid hobby?

Because I've already sort of invested in my hobby and would hate to have to find a new one just now…

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:58 am

That's not Nancy Grace's line, it's Donald Rumsfeld's line. Which tells us all we need to know.

But then, we already knew all that we need to know about you and your credibility, 24ahead.

There are several articles on this site, including the “Birther Movement Dogs Republicans” (with 2800 comments), where you have posts in the comments section. In the latter article's comments site, fully a dozen different people take you to task for your failure to cite any credible evidence or respond to simple questions or acknowledge reality.

But I see that you just hop from one article to another like a frog does with lily pads. Too bad for you that the anti-birthers here aren't any dumber than the anti-birthers everywhere else in the world.

Seriously, how do you find the time to post here when you're clearly so busy checking facts for your awesome web site? It must take you hours to read World Net Daily each day, which, from what I can tell, is what you stake 100% of your credibility on. People ask you for links and you say World Net Daily, like the guy who only knows one answer to every question.

I like how you never give up, no matter how many times you get pwned. I would be embarrased to keep showing my face. But then I'm not motivated by racism and fear. Guess those are more powerful than I realized.


WTF
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:28 am

Ok, that list is a who's who of LOSERS.

“Numerous Attorneys”!!! LOL. Like Orly Taitz, lawyer/dentist/real estate agent who went to an online correspondence law school? Or Phil Berg of 9/11 trufer fame, who was also sanctioned by the court and forced to take ethics classes? Or maybe Orly's new assistant, Charles Lincoln disbarred in multiple states? Oh, and military officers like Major Cook, the True Blue Falcon extraordinaire who volunteered to serve so he could file a lawsuit.

Lotta winners there, sure…

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:28 am

JohnC! Are you joking? How could any list with Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh, AND Pat Boone be a joke?

Those three names just scream “President's Commission on Pudding” or something.

Hey wait, you're right. Must be a joke.


WTF
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:33 am

Oh, and, go read your “petitition” because it was hacked to crap by Obots. Go read the “signatures” they are quite amusing!


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:33 am

Hey WTF, calm down and stop laughing. You neglected to notice or mention Pat Boone or Jerome Corsi. Look again. Some real heavy hitters there. You think Alan Keyes is just sitting there waiting for his phone to ring? Laughing outta the other side of your mouth NOW, aren't you pal? Just sit tight. This birther thing is about to take off.

I'm so sure of it that I bought all the tin foil in Appalachia, so that I can sell it to birthers at astounding mark-ups.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:48 am

Hear, hear.

Also, it's fun to mock racists. You don't have to feel bad about hurting your feelings, because they don't have any. They're racists.

But you said it a lot better.

I've written elsewhere about why the birthers tick me off. Essentially, it comes down to the comparison of September 12, 2001 and today. On Sept. 12, 2001, Democrats put aside their personal feelings about President Bush and rallied around the flag and our leader because we were suddenly at war.

Today, we're still at war. We have two wars. And our economy sucks, which it did not on Sept. 12, 2001. So you'd naturally expect the Republicans to rally around the flag and our leader, right?

Not so much. They're too busy trying to keep you from getting health care, trying to continue funding F-22's that have never seen a single mission in either of the two wars and never will, trying to deny other people the right to marry who they fall in love with, and trying to deny that the President is a U.S. citizen.

Talk about responsible leadership. Who can blame the birthers? For 40 years the GOP has played the fear card at every opportunity, whether it's Willie Horton or a wall that covers 300 miles of a 700 mile border with the only people desperate enough to clean up after us for the pittance we pay them under the table to do so. So of course now the birthers see America changing and “want their country back” like the nutjob lady with a ziplock bag containing a birth certificate that she may or may not have forged in a grand, decades-old conspiracy involving the state of Delaware (without proof, how can we be sure)?

But I TOTALLY agree with what you said. Keep it coming. And be sure to say “President Barack Hussein Obama” as often as possible. Makes the corners of their eyes tighten just a bit.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:53 am

Correction to the correction: Lou Dobbs thinks he's gonna get ratings by catering to racists. So the question will be whether the racists who have an appetite for his anti-Mexican immigrant rants will also stomach his anti-black President yammering.

I think Weigel is right. Dobbs is throwing his career away by trying to cater to the fringe here. But I don't believe he even thinks he's being a Patriot. He's trying to get ratings and sell books before Sarah Palin's fans spend all their disposable income by paying to sign their name (or make their mark with an X if they cannot do so) on an intimate part of her body. I'm pretty sure she does that after each interview she gives, during the time that other politicians give press conferences.

Sorry to step on your toes, JohnC. But I think you give Dobbs too much credit. I doubt that he believes the birther nonsense.


Tuci78
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:51 am

The number of people logging onto a Web site to express their concern about our Mombasa Messiah's qualification (or lack thereof) to hold the public office he presently usurps is not a relevant datum. The number of people questioning (or affirming) a proposition matters not at all when it comes to matters of fact. Opinions are nice, but what are the facts about this issue?

One fact is that Barry Soetoro has been astonishingly, exceptionally, suspiciously refractory insofar as the release of his personal records – including his medical records in Kenya, sealed by the Kenyan government “permanently, until after the U.S. elections” (as if that doesn't shoot up flares and scream “Incriminating Evidence HERE!”) – is concerned.

Another is that the only “proof” of Barry's claim that he had been born in Honolulu instead of in a hospital in Mombasa consists of two computer graphic images which show unmistakable signs of having been cobbled together from graphic scans of at least two legitimate Hawaii Certifications of Live Birth, issued in different years (borders, the seal, and other characteristics of the documents are changed by the state of Hawaii from one year to another to make forgeries more easily detectable), from which the certificate number – of all things – has been redacted.

Why the hell was the CERTIFICATE NUMBER blacked out, for pity's sake?

The originating document from which those images had allegedly been scanned – a print-on-paper, signed and sealed COLB issued by the state of Hawaii to our Melanotic Mahdi in 2007 – has supposedly been seen and fondled and photographed by the crew at the Annenberg Foundation's FactCheck office, but none of these persons are either qualified to assess the validity or provenance of such a legal document. Nor are they the “nonpartisan” authorities on the Truthfulness of Everything they advertise themselves to be. That much is painfully obvious from what is found on their “About Us” page.

No other person has been able to come forward and attest to the character and information contained in that mysterious 2007 COLB. It is alleged to have existed in June 2008 so that the worker bees at the Obama campaign could scan it, and then a bit later so that their allies at FactCheck could caress it and take pictures which I've no doubt they've employed in masturbatory sessions in the FactCheck rest room, but no one qualified or certified as expert in the forensic examination of such legal documents has been given the opportunity to put that piece of paper under scrutiny sufficient to confirm its value as evidence of any kind.

This alone is remarkable. Given the conditions of Barry's birth and the questions raised persistently since he first announced his candidacy for the National Socialist Party's presidential nomination, One would think that he and his handlers would've been eager to get such a solid manifest of his bona fides out there where unimpeachable examiners (rather than hapless J-school jerkwads) could support his contention that he is, indeed, qualified to be grunting upon the Presidential toilet just off the Oval Office.

All the opinion, one way or another, matters less than – indeed, is insignificant compared to – whether or not that 2007 COLB really exists, what is really printed upon it, and whether it was really issued by the government of the state of Hawaii.

Until that is dragged out into the daylight, there is no surety. While the opinions of hundreds of thousands doubtless discomfits the highly insecure and manifestly fraudulent creature who calls himself “Barack Hussein Obama,” until he is compelled to produce that document – and probably much else, including EVERYTHING he's been struggling so hard to keep concealed – his legitimacy as President of these United States is effectively zero.

It is the duty of the citizenry to “Keep up the skeer” against Mr. Soetoro, to hammer him and his fellahin without relent, and to pound home the demand:

“Where's your friggin' birth certificate, you miserable sonofabitch?”


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:04 am

Birthers are racist.

For those who say birthers aren't racist, I present here a few quotes from Randwulf. They all appeared on one 109 post thread. I haven't bothered to look at any of his racist comments made in other threads, like the one with 2,869 comments. If you fuss about it someone will compile a master list including comments from others as well, and prove you that much MORE wrong.

Oh, and he also gives away birther philosophy. So this is a Birther Rosetta Stone. Every other word after this sentence is a direct quote of Randwulf, and the last quote is a nod to Florida Christian, so enjoy!

“I think he is an Indonesian wetback, an illegal alien in every sense of the word.” [posted twice on same thread, days apart]

“Monkeys are experts on where to find nuts. Aren't they ALFTURD?”

“Monkeyf@cker.”

“Yes like when you call me a “racist”. Turnabout is fair play MONKEYF@CK!”

“But, its all good. Laugh away. Eat bananas and fling pooh! The monkeys can never run the zoo for very long before more advanced primates must move back in, hose down all the $hit and restore order. Looking forward to that!!”

“Wack-a-doodle? Hmm is that some new kind of mongrel breed or something? Why don't you guys run one of them for office! Oh and this time, make sure he has all his records, so we don't have to go through all this again.”

“I don't remember mentioning race at all, so it is you “making it clear” that I must harbor “racist” sentiments.”

“Man have I got a list of who's been naughty and who's been nice. Got ammo?”

[Birther Philosophy revealed below!]

“Whatever they have, we want to see it. We won't stop until we have it. Argument over it is pointless. The original documents will tell all. And then we will go for all the rest of the documents that he refuses to release.”

[Florida Christian Alert!]

“This whole sick episode would have been laid to rest long ago if…”


ericmack
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

Hey Look! Lou “Circle the Wagons” Dobbs has chimed in on the Henry Louis Gates Jr. flap (kind of) – http://tr.im/tFxl


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

“The world is round not flat.” – MikeB

What evidence do you have to prove that the world is round not flat?

I'm talking legit evidence. Dont tell me about any of the obvious fakes that have been discussed and shredded by my online newsletter already.

It seems like such a simple request. Just back up what your saying, dude. ANY map that has a certificate (not certification) of authenticity should be able to prove your point, and then this whole thing will be laid to rest.
If you dont want to admit your wrong just say it libtard. Just say your wrong and this whole thing goes away.


The Shaming of Lou Dobbs | The Washington Independent | obamapassport.com
Pingback posted July 23, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

[...] Read more here: The Shaming of Lou Dobbs | The Washington Independent [...]


xcott
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

And don't think you can convince us with a photo, because the 24ahead dot com spammer doesn't consider a picture of anything to be evidence.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

If you really HAVE to see Obama's birth certificate number, see here:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…


Jim
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

Hey, 24Ahead, sorry this took so long, but WND has a tendency to hide things. Here is a direct quote about the COLB from WND…

“A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.”

So the site you cite says Obama's a US Citizen, and blows the forgery experts, who were creating their own forgeries so they could call them forgeries, out of the water. Now, can you finally see that? Or, do you just ignore facts that don't feed your delusions.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

Have you seen jimpa's response to me, and my counter, on the original long-ass thread?

I'm gonna usurp Florida Christian by hook or by crook.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

—jimpa 3 hours ago

Evidence :

Most Americans believe the world isn't flat. Just a small group of people believe that the earth is flat.

Astronauts and cosmonauts has seen the earth and state that the world isn't flat.

We have satellites orbiting the planet and their data says the world isn't flat.

Go to any main stream news source and it will state the world isn't flat.

Sailors at some point would fall off the flat surface.

____________________________

—stephenperry 3 hours ago

Lies. Damnable lies.

1 – Link, please. Not to one of your commie libtard sites. Just a small group of people freed the U.S. mainland from British tyranny and lazy shiftless Native American Indians, pal. Dont tread on me.

2 – The moon landing was faked. Prove that it wasn't. Without using faked proof. I don't trust cosmonauts, they're commie fascist socialist marxist leftist rightist upist downists.

3 – You don't effing know what our satellites say unless you can read encrypted spy satellite code, libtard. We don't trust dumbocrats with national security.

4 – Main stream media is a libtard sewer.

5 – They'd have to go off the EDGE, Obamaphile. Who's dumb enough to sail off the edge? Sailors, like my grandfather and greatgrandfather who both served three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan AND Gettysburg, know how to steer a ship. Unlike you, libtard.

Jesus H. Christ. DO ANY OF YOU LIBTARDS HAVE A BRAIN IN YOUR COMMIE LEFTIST HEADS?

I have no idea how Florida Christian doesn't just giggle himself right off his computer chair every day.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

The heart of Obama’s eligibility issue is whether someone with dual nationality can qualify as a “Natural Born Citizen” or whether the Founders intended this qualification to exclude ALL foreign influence in the President compared to “Citizen” for Senator. Furthermore, US Constitution Amendment XX provides for “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify.”
The strict difference between constitutional qualifications of “Natural Born Citizen” for President over “Citizen” for Senator is that the President must be born of two US citizens and be born within the USA to exclude all foreign influence.
Barack Obama Sr. was an alien Kenyan student from the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar without permanent US domicile. Barack Obama (I) was not a US citizen but a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Consequently, Barack H. Obama (II) acknowledged he had British citizenship at birth by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
As President Elect, Obama failed to provide any evidence that he had qualified. He failed to provide evidence that both his parents were US citizens. Registrars in Hawaii and Kenya claim to have Obama’s birth certificate. Obama has not provided any original birth certificate or associated evidence sufficient to distinguish between these differing public claims of his birth.
Following is evidence of this intent from the Constitutional Convention and drafters of the 14th Amendment.
First US Chief Justice John Jay recommended to Constitutional Convention President George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” (Jay emphasized “born”).
Washington acknowledged and the Convention changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen” without debate.
In “The Law of Nations”, (1758) Emmerich de Vattel defined “natural born citizen” as combining both parents’ allegiance (jus sanguinis) with birthplace(jus soli):
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . .”
Alexander Hamilton explained:
“ . .every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government . . . [come] chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” To protect the President’s election from foreign powers: “. . . raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy . . the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, . . .”
Delegate Senator Charles Pinckney summarized the Electoral College and Presidential qualifications:
“It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, . . . . . to make it impossible for the different States to know who the Electors are for, or for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere; that by doing this the President would really hold his office independent of the Legislature; . . . This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible…. ”
Rep. John A. Bingham, Union Army Judge Advocate and drafter of the 14th Amendment said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, inserted “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof” into Amendment XIV, explaining:
“That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

“The strict difference between constitutional qualifications of “Natural Born Citizen” for President over “Citizen” for Senator is that the President must be born of two US citizens and be born within the USA to exclude all foreign influence.”

That's true, in a limited sense. A Senator only needs to be a citizen, which means he can be born a citizen or subseqently naturalized. A President, however, must be a “natural born citizen,” which, as the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, simply means he cannot be naturalized. For support, let's turn to Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). In a discussion about the citizenship, the Court wrote:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Notice that the court treats “natives,” “natural-born citizens” and “citizens by birth” completely interchangeably within the context of citizenship. Now notice that the Court in the first paragraph refers to “natual-born citizens” in the context of both citizenship AND the presidential eligibility clause. There is simply zero evidence that the Supreme Court has ever interpreted “natural born citizen” in the context of either presidential eligibility OR citizenship to mean anything other than “citizenship by birth.” (Find ONE case to the contrary.)

Now arguments can be made about what citizenship meant to the Founding Fathers, because it was undefined in the Constitution. However, congressional acts, the Fourteenth Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have sharply defined how citizenship is acquired by birth.

For example, note that the Court said above: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also… Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” But, as it turns out, the Court later resolved these doubts in Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and jus soli has been the law of the land for virtually any person born on U.S. soil since that date.

Therefore, just as anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen by birth, that person is by definition a natural born citizen. That is true both for purposes of citizenship and presidential eligibility.

There's simply no legal controversy here. I dare ANYBODY to point to a single case where the Supreme Court has held or posited that “natural born citizen” has a definition distinct from “citizen by birth” in any context.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

The Supreme Court has addressed citizenship vs not.
It has NEVER addressed the qualifications for President of Natural Born Citizen vs Citizen.
For that you have to go to the origins. See extracts above.

See James v. Obama
The Right Side of Life has posted all the Elegibility Lawsuits at http [colon double slash] www [dot] therightsideoflife [dot] com [slash question] page [underline] id [equals] 1518
See also the web site of Orly Taitz Esq [dot] com


Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

You dishonest attempt to conflate your refusal to accept the evidence with their being no evidence is quite funny.

OBama has more than satisfied the requirements to anyone who is willing to honestly examine the issue.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

See Amendment XX “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify.”
As President elect, Obama provided NO evidence that he qualified.


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

Glad to see you have finally seen the light stephen!

This round earth nonsense is just a by product of modern liberal education brainwashing.

If the earth was really rotating like the liberal scientists claim, then when you jumped up in the air you would come down a few feet away.

Dumbocrats cant face basic reality!


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

I'll tell you what – I'll just let the Supreme Court speak for itself:

Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . .” This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . .”

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829 (U.S. 1971).

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (U.S. 1964).

The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural-born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion, and without “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” proof that he did not bear or swear true allegiance to the United States at the time of naturalization he cannot be denaturalized.

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 680 (U.S. 1944).

It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.

Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 464 (U.S. 1920).

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” and “the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (U.S. 1884).

The Constitution provides that no person shall be a representative who has not been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” (Art. I, sec. 2, par. 2;) that no person shall be a senator who has not been “nine years a citizen of the United States,” (Art. I, sec. 3, par. 3;) that no person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States “except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” (Art. II, sec. 1, par. 4;) and that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,” (Art. IV, sec. 2, par. 1.) And Congress is empowered “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” (Art. I, sec. 8, par. 4.) But prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment there was no definition of citizenship of the United States in the instrument.

Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 158 (U.S. 1892).


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

Pat Boone is a birther and he certainly is no dummie.

In addition to being a great Christian, he is a terrific entertainer and has extensive foreign policy experience in that he went of a Journery to the Center of the Earth where he had to fight dinosaurs and he got blown out of a volcano and everthing.


Denjudge
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 2:12 am

Birthers will never be satisifed, regardless of what they are shown.

Hell, why don’t they ask to see DNA from Obama’s daughters to make sure they are really his? You know, Clinton was impeached because he lied about a blow job. Perhaps Obama is lying that his daughters are really his, so let’s prove that they are his daughters with DNA tests.

Why not get proof of Obama’s father’s death certificate to prove that he’s really dead? Perhaps Obama is lying that his father really is dead, and we should catch him in that lie.

Yes, and once that Obama birth certificate is produced, let’s send it around on a 50 state tour so people can come by and view it with their own eyes to make sure it is real, and give each and every one of them a chance to hire their own experts to help them verify it is real.

Yes, let’s satisfy every question, whim, and desire these birthers want so we can distract from the not so real problems of the day, like the economy, two wars, and health care.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

That now makes seven opinions in which the Supreme Court has explicitly or implicitly equates “natural born citizen” from Article II, Section 1 to citizenship by birth. I can add more, but you get the idea.

You have shown me exactly zero saying the contrary.

My hunch is that if the Supreme Court were forced to take up this nonsense, it would place far more weight on more than a century of its own clear precedent than on eighteenth-century treatises which base their theories on constructions of citizenship which have long been rejected in this country.

For instance, Vattel (who you cite) writes in section 215 of Book I of The Law of Nations: “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.”

As any basic student of American law knows, political laws have indeed ordained otherwise courtesy of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and countless congressional statutes. The Supreme Court had a chance to side with Vattel in Wong Kim Ark and jettison the concept of jus soli as an artifact of feudal English law – and this position was handily rejected by the majority.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

Try the founders and early justices to understand the original meaning:

“It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, the disposal of all the honors and offices of your Government, the management of your foreign concerns, and the revision of your laws. Invested with these important powers, it was easily to be seen that the honor and interest of your Government required he should execute them with firmness and impartiality; that, to do this, he must be independent of the Legislature; that they must [P 386] have no control over his election; that the only mode to prevent this was to give the exclusive direction to the State Legislatures in the mode of choosing Electors, who should be obliged to vote secretly; and that the vote should be taken in such manner, and on the same day, as to make it impossible for the different States to know who the Electors are for, or for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere; that by doing this the President would really hold his office independent of the Legislature; that instead of being the creature, he would be the man of the people; that he would have to look to them, and to the confidence which he felt his own meritorious actions would inspire, for applause or subsequent appointments….Knowing that it was the intention of the Constitution to make the President completely independent of the Federal Legislature, I well remember it was the object, as it is at present not only the spirit but the letter of that instrument, to give to Congress no interference in, or control over the election of a President. . . .[P 387] . . . They well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….” Senator Charles Pinckney (emphasis added) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] CCLXXXVIII. Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate. March 28, 1800, 1 Annals of Congress, Sixth Congress, 129–139.] pp 385, 386, 387 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:17:….

“the president should be a natural born citizen … Considering the greatness of the trust… these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Lecture 13 Of the President (2.), Commentaries on American Law (1826-1830).

“It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3 § 1473 on Art II § 1 Cl. 5 (1833)


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

“This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible….” Senator Charles Pinckney”

- This doesn't define what a “natural born citizen” actually is. Nowhere does this say that the President's attachments are in any way shaped by the citizenship of his parents.

““the president should be a natural born citizen … Considering the greatness of the trust… these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” James Kent”

- Again, this fails to define what “natural born citizen” is, other than to equate it with being a “native citizen.” That term is also not defined, but I am not aware that anyone has suggested that “native citizen” also has a special meaning distinct from citizen by birth.

““It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties… – Joseph Story”

- Again, no word on what “natural born citizen” means, except that it is the opposite of naturalized citizenship. Naturalized citizenship, as it has been firmly settled in this country for over 100 years, means one who acquires his citizenship by a process other than by virtue of his birth. And again, this places presidential eligibility squarely within the common definition of citizenship, which is clearly defined by our courts, and serves as an argument against a special meaning for “natural born Citizen.”


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

The line between parody and sincere argument is blurring awfully fast.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:07 pm

You claim “Nowhere does this say that the President's attachments are in any way shaped by the citizenship of his parents.”
To the founders is was obvious that citizenship passed through the father. See James v Obama as follows:

6. Primary allegiance by father’s allegiance at birth
321. Allegiance flowed through the father in Judeo-Christian legal tradition.

322. de Vattel finds allegiance follows ‘born of the parents’ (jus sanguinis) especially through fathers:
“ . .the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.”
323. Blackstone affirms allegiance through fathers:
“. . . so that all children, born out of the king’s licence, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes,. . .”
324. The Founders codified citizenship as passing through the father:
“the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”
330. Constitutional Convention Delegate Sen. Charles Pinckney affirms:
“. . .through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”
325. The father’s allegiance was held to control a man’s natural citizenship:
“As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.”

326. Justice Harlan affirmed this historical paternal citizenship, while noting that Congress extended citizenship rights in 1934 to foreign-born children of citizen mothers. ,
327. Chester Arthur was the only other President to have British citizenship at birth. William Arthur was not naturalized until 14 years after Chester's birth.
328. Arthur strenuously hid his disqualifying British allegiance. He appointed and may have influenced Justice Gray. See Appendix.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

JohnC
Obama has NEVER made his “birth certificate” public. You are referring to “Hawaii's Certification of Live Birth” which can be based on the statement of a relative. Hawaii's own Dep Hawaiian Homelands does not accept this COLB as sufficient. Neither does the Dept. of State. See James v. Obama:

125. Certified Diplomate Sandra Ramsey Lines
“state[d] with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet . . .cannot be relied upon as genuine. . . . examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this to rest”
126. U.S. Dept. State rejects images and abstract certificates as prima facie evidence:
“A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, . . . some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
127. Hawaii similarly warns:
“Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258. Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69″.

Footnotes: How to Apply for the First Time, U.S. Dept. State travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
HRS §338-41's Case Notes
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 42 Stat. 108

Kenya's Public Registrar also claims to hold Obama's original birth certificate. Legally, Obama's birth location cannot be determined until the original birth records and associated confirming information is examined by experts for both Hawaii and Kenya.


2sun
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

Right Side of Life lists the Eligibility Lawsuits
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

Latest Update: (07/21/09)

Common Law Grand Jury Updates:

* Citizen Grand Jury Presentments Received in DC
* Citizen Grand Jury News
* TX Grand Jury Presentment
* Eligibility Update: US Attorney Taylor Resigns, Another Grand Jury Indictment, GA Voter Case Headed to SCOTUS
* Grand Jury and Secret Service!
* Jury Update: WorldNetDaily Coverage of Citizen Grand Jury Indictments
* Rhode Island and Media Take First Glance at Citizen Grand Jury Movement
* Military Officers Sign on to Treason Complaint; More Citizen Grand Jury Action
* Jury Update: Fraud, Treason Indictment; Juries Now Online
* Jury Update: Texas, Arkansas and Evidence

Older updates can be found in my Eligibility Case Archive.

Supreme Court:

* Oklahoma (Steven Craig): (07/06/09)
o Petition for writ filed
o Craig v. United States
* California (Dr. Orly Taitz for Gail Lightfoot): (03/24/09)
o Lightfoot v. Bowen Refiled
o DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
*
o

o Lightfoot v. Bowen
* Quo Warranto: (03/24/09)
o Quo Warranto Filed at SCOTUS
o Easterling v. Obama

DC Circuit Court of Appeals:

* DC (Gregory Hollister): (03/19/09)
o Appealed; Important dates for responses: 04/17 and 05/4
o Hollister v. Soetoro

Third Circuit Court of Appeals:

* Berg v. Obama (02/03/09)
o Clerk referring case to Merit Panel
o This case caused SCOTUS case for writ of cert to be denied

Federal Court for the District of Arizona:

* Allen v. Soetoro (07/07/09)
o Filed

Federal Court for the District of Columbia:

* James v. Obama (03/29/09)
o James v. Obama: Motion for Quo Warranto, USDC for DC

Federal Court for the Central District of California:

* Keyes v. Obama (07/14/09)
o Hearing to be set on merits of case

Federal Court for New Jersey, Camden:

* Kerchner v. Obama (07/21/09)
o Plaintiffs file opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss

Federal Court for Middle Georgia, Columbus:

* Cook v. Good (07/15/09)
o Injunction filed

At the State level: Latest update: 07/05/09

* California:
o Joan Corbett: Corbett v. Bowen (11/16/08)
+ AmericaMustKnow history
* Florida:
o Spencer Connerat: Connerat v. Obama (07/05/09)
+ Case Refiled
* Hawaii:
o Birth Certificate Brief File in HI Appellate Court
o Andy Martin: Martin v. Lingle (05/27/09)
* New York:
o State Department, DHS Respond
o Christopher Strunk: Chris Strunk FOIA (05/01/09)
* North Carolina:
o New case to be submitted
o Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan: Sullivan v. Marshall (03/20/09)
+ AmericaMustKnow history

Other Reports: (02/09/09)

The following presumably does not include all above action:

* Various Other Cases Against Obama
* Per Stephen Pidgeon:
o London Solicitor working on UK connection
o Operatives looking for POE (Port Of Entry) info
o Leads in Seattle
o Leads in DC
* Phil Berg mentioned another Berg v. Obama case under seal at this time
* Georiga: Filed December 2008
* Alabama: Filed December 2008
* Illinois: Filed December 2008
* Michigan: Filed December 2008
* Virginia: Challenge
* Ohio: Challenge
* California: Legal action
* North Carolina: Legal action
* Massachusetts: Challenge
* Maryland: Commitment from numerous individuals to file a challenge
* Virgin Islands: Commitment to file a challenge

After Inauguration: (01/12/09)

* If all other actions fall through, Philip Berg plans on filing a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto (be sure to read the linked wikipedia article], challenging the President-Elect’s qualifications for President

Seeking an Attorney (02/17/09)

* Ms. Cris Ericson: Ericson v. Obama (12/24/08)
o Challenging Obama’s birth certificate

Lawsuit with Military and ex-Military Plaintiffs

Per Dr. Orly Taitz’ recent commentary (now said to have approximately 50 Plaintiffs, one of whom is a blood relative of Obama)

[I]n re. to military case. We were planning to file today [01/08/09] in GA. A local attorney that was supposed to co-sign the papers has some personal problems. We need a local attorney in GA. Please contact me if you know of a GA attorney that can co-sign simply for the purpose of receipt of the documents from the court.

For an archive of defunct cases, see the page Eligibility Case Archive.

He laughs best who laughs last


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

“The Founders codified citizenship as passing through the father:
“the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”"

- Read the original 1790 statute carefully. The section you quote is a proviso tacked on to a statute concerning NATURALIZATION, not natural-born citizenship.

A person born in this country, however, was a natural born citizen, a concept derived from “natural born subject” under English common law. See for example, Justice Curtis' dissent in Dred Scott:

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States…”

Or the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

“III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”


Tuci78
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

Barry Soetoro having claimed dual (or perhaps triple?) nationality in his younger days to secure preferential treatment in his college and law school admissions – and possibly also financial assistance – would certainly explain his protean efforts to keep all his academic records sealed, up to and including one of his first executive orders further slamming the vaults closed, signed the moment his butt hit the seat of that big chair behind the Resolute desk.

Given that it appears Barry's career path went into “community organizing,” do you ever wonder why he took an interest in (and became expert in) constitutional law?

Hm. Looking for loopholes, it seems.


JohnC
Comment posted July 23, 2009 @ 11:43 pm

But aside from what the meaning of citizenship was at the outset of our country, it is utterly indisputable that our laws are radically different today. Citizenship is no longer predicated on the gender of the parent, to the extent that it ever was. Every person born on U.S. soil, with very narrow exceptions, is constitutionally a citizen by birth.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, regardless of the sources you cite (whatever their historical interest), the United States Supreme Court has consistently defined “natural born Citizen” as a function of our citizenship laws, and not as some fixed artifact left over from the 18th century, mysteriously frozen in time.


Tuci78
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 12:13 am

Argument from authority. Mr. Boone may be “no dummie” (that's open to question, of course), but his credentials to pronounce on Barry Soetoro's qualifications are no greater – or less – than your own, and it is wrong to cite him as someone whose opinion in this area commands respect.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 12:46 am

Hawaii's own Dep Hawaiian Homelands does not accept this COLB as sufficient.

- And there's a damn good reason for that. The Hawaii Department of Homelands provides land for persons of Hawaiian ancestry. Obviously the COLB – with its narrow function – can't provide that sort of information, so the Department asks for additional information to prove the applicant's ethnic heritage. Zero controversy there.

“125. Certified Diplomate Sandra Ramsey Lines
“state[d] with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet . . .cannot be relied upon as genuine. . . . examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this to rest” “

- First of all, genuine for what? Obviously you can't present a photograph of a document to the State Department, nor would a court rely on that. If that's what Ms. Lines is speaking of, she's stating the obvious.

I'm not aware that she's ever seen the actual COLB, so I'm not sure to what end her “expert opinion” serves.

“126. U.S. Dept. State rejects images and abstract certificates as prima facie evidence:
“A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, . . . some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.” “

- Obviously an image isn't going to be accepted. Only in a straw man argument would hypothesize that Obama would attempt to prove his citizenship through a photograph of a document.

As for whether the State Department would accept the COLB, the quote above dances around the question. It doesn't state whether the Hawaii COLB is such a form that would not be accepted. And if it isn't accepted, then Hawaii residents have a serious problem. Hawaii does not issue anything but COLBs, so if COLBs aren't sufficient for obtaining a passport, then Hawaiians are unable to travel abroad. I don't know about you, but Obama's been to a number of countries lately, don't you think? And I have this hunch, though not proven, that other Hawaiians sometimes travel overseas as well.

“127. Hawaii similarly warns:
“Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258. Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69″.”

- The First case cited was a 1913 territorial court decision which unfortunately is not available online, so it is difficult to know what facts were involved in the case. As for the second opinion, that simply stands for the proposition that U.S. officials can override state law for the purposes of controlling alien migration. That's been settled law for ages.

“Kenya's Public Registrar also claims to hold Obama's original birth certificate. Legally, Obama's birth location cannot be determined until the original birth records and associated confirming information is examined by experts for both Hawaii and Kenya.”

- From what I can tell, this comes from an affidavit by a Reverend Shuhubia, who never names the official. Furthermore, the affidavit states that Kenyan records indicate that Ann Dunham gave birth to “Barack Obama III” in Mombassa on August 4, 1961.

Since Obama's birth was registered on August 8, 1961 in Hawaii, that means that Ann Dunham had to board a plane within hours of giving birth and fly across the world to Hawaii just in the nick of time to notify Hawaiian authorities so that Obama would have a Hawaii birth certificate.

Aside from this being somewhat farfetched, especially given the expenses and rigors of air travel at the dawn of the jet age, it also presupposes that Ann Dunham would have known U.S. immigration law well enough to know that she could confer citizenship on her son if he was born outside the U.S.

As we know, Stanley Ann Dunham could not confer citizenship to a son not born on foreign soil due to a ridiculous technicality of immigration law which I doubt was well known to many non-immigration attorneys. So this also means that Ann Dunham also visited an immigration attorney promptly after debarking the plane in Honolulu with her newborn son, and was convinced that she had to establish his U.S. citizenship before anything else. Very forward thinking indeed.

If all of this sounds a bit farfetched, you're not alone.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 12:52 am

One other thing about the newspaper postings. According to Janice Okubo, postings were rarely if ever done on the prompting of an individual parent. Rather, the newspapers reguarly collected birth information from local hospitals and printed that information. So it's highly unlikely that Dunham simply picked up the phone upon arriving back in Hawaii to call the newspapers. But then that takes us back to Occam's razor – the most logical explanation is that Obama WAS in a Hawaii hospital, prompting publication of his birth notice.

But logic is in short supply these days.


Matt Taylor
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 1:26 am

Actually the hospitals have confirmed that they were notified of it by the government which is what normally happened those days.


Denjudge
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 1:33 am

See the web site of Orly Taitz????

I'm sorry, but she is a nut. She got her law degree online. She also is a dentist as well as a real estate agent. Seems odd that someone with these “qualifications” actually can practice and understand the law.

It also should be noted that notorious birther Philip Berg, also an attorney, has sued Orly Taitz because Ms. Taitz apparently published personal information, including social security number, of one of Mr. Berg's staffers. If true, and I have no reason to doubt it, what kind of an attorney (Taitz) practices mischief like publishing social security numbers….such is the stuff of tabloids.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 1:40 am

I'm not sure I follow: “the hospitals have confirmed that they were notified of it by the government“?


Gus
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 2:46 am

I'm glad you're seeing the light. Jesus, what a bunch of clowns, eh?


Dave
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 4:39 am

Lou Dobbs is trying to determine the truth on the issue–as news people are supposed to do but so few do anymore. Great job, Lou! Keep fighting for the truth for America! Thank you.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 4:55 am

In a recent post, 2sun links to various documents showing different names that Barack Obama has used over the years. I'd like to direct attention to Obama's Indonesian school registration:

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

Notice that the document lists Obama's birth as Honolulu, Hawaii, “4-8-61″, which means August 4, 1961 in most parts of the world. Now why would Soetero, Dunham or Obama feel the need to list his birthplace as Honolulu – if it were false – when applying to a school in Indonsia, given that Soetero had adopted Obama?


2sun
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

JohnC
Note that in his Indonesian school registration Obama is listed as “Barry Soetoro” with citizenship Indonesian and religion Muslim.
Obama's Indonesian citizenship further breaches John Jay's critical distinction of no foreign influence for a “Natural Born Citizen”.
Furthermore, having legally become Barry Soetoro, when did he have his name legally changed to Barack Hussein Obama and what evidence was ever given for that? Note the use of Barry through grade school and high school.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

Even if Obama were a Muslim, it doesn't make him ineligible for office. Article VI, Section 3 states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

With regard to his listed citizenship, even if Obama had become a citizen of Indonesia as a result of his parents actions, under the law at the time, none of this could have any effect on Obama's natural born citizen status unless he failed to establish permanent residency in the United States before age 25. Here is the text of the relevant statute in effect at the time of Obama's youth:

“[A] person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by –

“(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behald of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday…”

Most reports state that Obama returned to the United States in 1971, when he was about 10 years old. Even the most skeptical reports concede that Obama was in the U.S. well before he was 25 years old.

Regarding whether Obama's Indonesia citizenship constitutes a “foreign influence,” I should remind you that the Constitution only requires that a president be a natural born citizen and 35 years or over. You're now inventing additional, extra-constitutional criterion to claim or suggest that Obama can't serve.

As for Obama's name change, since when was his name change from Barack Obama to Barry Soetero ever recognized by the United States? It seems odd that a person who was born as Barack Hussein Obama II in the United States, never had his name legally changed there, and decides to use that name in public life there, has to go through legal hoops to call himself EXACTLY what his birth certifcate/COLB reads.

As for the use of the name Barry, why is that problematic? There are plenty of people who use an adolescent variant on their name, then go on to use their given name as an adult. (For example, “Ricky” Schroeder became “Rick” Schroeder when he got older.) I just don't see or share your concern.


2sun
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

On US recognition of adoption See:
“Stanley Ann D. Soetoro v. Lolo Soetoro's divorce decree acknowledged one child under 18 and one child over 18, implying Barry's adoption by Soetoro.”
Stanley Ann Soetoro v. Lolo Soetoro, 1st Ckt. Ct. Haw. FC.D.No.117619 Divr. Decr. Aug. 28, 1980.

By acknowledging divorce and the child, US courts must correspondingly acknowledge a marriage.
“154. Hawai'ian registration of Soetoro’s marriage to Dunham and adopting Obama would have created another birth certificate for Barry Soetoro, sealing previous records.”

Hawaii likely created another “original” birth certificate for each of Dunham's marriages, divorces after Obama was born and until he came of age.

These court & hawaii formal registrations provide evidence of having formally been given the name “Barry Soetoro” by adoption.
He used “Barry Obama” in the US through grade school, high school and into college.

No evidence of a legal change of name from Soetoro back to Obama.

If that legal US record exists for Barry Soetoro, then use of Barack Hussein Obama without a legal change of name suggests he purged himself and ran under an assumed name.

The principle underlying “natural born citizen” over “citizen” is excluding foreign influence. Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian citizenship is evidence of violating the spirit of that qualification. That supports the prima facia evidence of his British citizenship at birth which directly violates the “natural born citizen” qualification.


Jim
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

2Sun: You have to prove, not make up things…

“Hawaii likely created another “original” birth certificate for each of Dunham's marriages, divorces after Obama was born and until he came of age.”

That would be considered illegal. Besides, did the papers make up a new announcement each time also?


ziploked
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

Finally, someone who does the research, and has a brain! Thank you, JohnC! It's so tiresome reading all the BS from people who go on hearsay versus facts. People have become gullible and lazy, preferring to believe anything they hear, rather than finding the facts for themselves. The internet gives us access to more data than at any time in human history, but unfortunately, it gives access to bad data too.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

The principle underlying “natural born citizen” over “citizen” is excluding foreign influence. Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian citizenship is evidence of violating the spirit of that qualification. That supports the prima facia evidence of his British citizenship at birth which directly violates the “natural born citizen” qualification.

If the framers of the Constitution wished to restrict presidents to those persons without “foreign influence,” they could have written that into the document. They failed to do so. Instead, our Founding Fathers used the term “natural born Citizen.”

You are making a constitutional argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” You claim it means “no foreign influence.” We can compare your claim, however, to Supreme Court precedent to see whether it holds up:

Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . .” This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . .”

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829 (U.S. 1971).

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (U.S. 1964).

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” and “the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (U.S. 1884).

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides n6 that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” 7 and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).

These cases show unambiguously that the Supreme Court has consistently viewed “natural born Citizen” as a function of our citizenship laws. Your claim that the provision embodies vague considerations about “foreign influence” is unsupported by over a hundred years of precedent.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

The principle underlying “natural born citizen” over “citizen” is excluding foreign influence. Soetoro/Obama's Indonesian citizenship is evidence of violating the spirit of that qualification. That supports the prima facia evidence of his British citizenship at birth which directly violates the “natural born citizen” qualification.

If the framers of the Constitution wished to restrict presidents to those persons without “foreign influence,” they could have written that into the document. They failed to do so. Instead, our Founding Fathers used the term “natural born Citizen.”

You are making a constitutional argument about the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” You claim it means “no foreign influence.” We can compare your claim, however, to Supreme Court precedent to see whether it holds up:

Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . .” This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . .”

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829 (U.S. 1971).

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (U.S. 1964).

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” and “the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (U.S. 1884).

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides n6 that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” 7 and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).

These cases show unambiguously that the Supreme Court has consistently viewed “natural born Citizen” as a function of our citizenship laws. Your claim that the provision embodies vague considerations about “foreign influence” is simply unsupported by over a hundred years of precedent.


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

Hawaii likely created another “original” birth certificate for each of Dunham's marriages, divorces after Obama was born and until he came of age.

These court & hawaii formal registrations provide evidence of having formally been given the name “Barry Soetoro” by adoption.

He used “Barry Obama” in the US through grade school, high school and into college.

No evidence of a legal change of name from Soetoro back to Obama.

If that legal US record exists for Barry Soetoro, then use of Barack Hussein Obama without a legal change of name suggests he purged himself and ran under an assumed name.

Assuming any of this is correct, how does this affect Obama's legitimate election? Is there now a dispute over whether the “person” referred to in the presidential eligibility requirements is the flesh and blood human being or the legal identity of that person?

And isn't it a bit odd to say that Obama is using an “assumed name” by using the name given to him at birth, and which he used his entire life except for when he lived in Indonesia?

And do we even know that Obama's name was LEGALLY changed to Soetero in Indonesia? Putting a child's name on a school registration paper is not the same thing as formally and legally changing a child's name. Where's the evidence?


Jim
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

I like when you get an honest assessment of this issue from the right…and then they get booed down. But, if the birthers want to make sure that in 2012 Obama wins the presidency again, I say let them have at it and enjoy wasting their time and money on this instead of getting their message out to the voters. John Hawkins had a nice op-ed piece last month on this:

“Of course, if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii as he says, you might have some very basic questions. For example, why hasn't he bent over backwards to dispel the notion that he may have been born elsewhere? Well, why would he at this point? He has a significant number of conservatives wasting enormous amounts of time on a side issue that can never bear any fruit and, as an added bonus, it makes them look somewhat unhinged to many Americans. When your political enemies are making fools of themselves, why stop them? “

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009…

So, POTUS would like to thank all you birthers for keeping this non-issue alive and for being so kind as to contribute to his re-election campaign…keep up the good work!


Florida Christian
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

Pat Boone is a birther and he certainly is no dummie.

In addition to being a great Christian, he is a terrific entertainer and has extensive foreign policy experience in that he went of a Journery to the Center of the Earth where he had to fight dinosaurs and he got blown out of a volcano and everthing.


2sun
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

Note: “and not subject to any foreign power,”

The principle of interpretation is to look at the expressded intent of the authors of a bill and the debates in Congress. See:

Rep. John A. Bingham, Union Army Judge Advocate and drafter of the 14th Amendment said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, inserted “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof” into Amendment XIV, explaining:
“That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Obama had British citizenship at birth and was subject to the United Kingdom. Consequently he was not a “Natural Born Citizen”


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

Note: “and not subject to any foreign power,”

The principle of interpretation is to look at the expressded intent of the authors of a bill and the debates in Congress. See:

Rep. John A. Bingham, Union Army Judge Advocate and drafter of the 14th Amendment said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, inserted “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof” into Amendment XIV, explaining:
“That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

The Supreme Court actually had something to say about that in Wong Kim Ark:

During the debates in the Senate in January and February, 1866, upon the Civil Rights Bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.” Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, “Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?” Mr. Trumbull answered, “Undoubtedly;” and asked, “Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Mr. Cowan replied, “The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.” Mr. Trumbull rejoined: “The law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, “without distinction of color,” should be omitted as unnecessary; and said: “The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent; and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born,” And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought it better that they should be retained, to remove all possible doubt. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form, (less the words “or naturalized,”) and reading, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Mr. Cowan objected, upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded; and said: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” “I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.” Mr. Conness, of California, replied: “The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.” “We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constituional Amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 4, pp. 2890-2892. It does not appear to have been suggested, in either House of Congress, that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves; and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered and not overlooked.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 697-699 (1898).

Aside from the Supreme Court itself directly undercutting your argument, you are now arguing that persons born in the United States, who happen to have a parent who is not a citizen of the United States, are themselves not citizens of the United States. This would came as one hell of a shock to millions of Americans who have lived here their entire lives, only to find that they are not citizens of any country.

Clearly, what you are advancing is an abrogation of the principle of jus soli, and the voiding of the citizenship of millions of Americans. Obviously, the Court has rejected your theory resoundingly.

But let's look at what you're advocating for the sake of argument. Not only would the children of noncitizens not be citizens, but the latter's children would also not be citizens for the same reason. And that would essentially void the elibigility of every president who has ever served. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that as an absurd result.


2sun
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

JohnC
You allege: “you are now arguing that persons born in the United States, who happen to have a parent who is not a citizen of the United States, are themselves not citizens of the United States.” “Clearly, what you are advancing is an abrogation of the principle of jus soli, and the voiding of the citizenship of millions of Americans.”

FALSE on both counts:
I never said they were not “citizens”.

The Constitution itself distinguishes between “Citizen” for Senators and “Natural Born Citizen” for the President.

No amendment has revoked this distinction, and thus “Natural Born Citizen” must still be a subset of “Citizen” bearing the distinctions that the Founders made between them.
That distinction has never been evaluated on its merits for a President Elect. Thus the citations to the original authors and those aware of the early debates and context.

Chester Arthur is the only other president for whom this applied. Evidence is that he hid/dissembled over his own British citizenship at birth – in that his father was not naturalized until after Chester was born.

Note again 14th Amendment author John A. Bingham:
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
That requires BOTH birth location AND US allegiance by Parents to be a “natural born citizen” as distinct from a “citizen.”


JohnC
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

FALSE on both counts:
I never said they were not “citizens”.

You're trying to argue that “natural born citizen” has a unique meaning by pointing to a debate over citizenship. You can't have it both ways. Either “natural born citizen” is linked to the post-ratification definition of citizenship or it isn't. If it isn't, then the debates concerning the Fourteenth Amendment – which was explicitly aimed at changing the definition of citizenship – are simply not relevant to this discussion.

The Constitution itself distinguishes between “Citizen” for Senators and “Natural Born Citizen” for the President.

Of course it does. And the Supreme Court has stated exactly what this distinction is:

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (U.S. 1964).

According to the Supreme Court, the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is that the former includes all U.S. citizens, and the latter includes the “native born,” as opposed to the “naturalized person.”

That distinction has not changed since the founding of our country. What has changed are the bases for citizenship by birth and naturalization. Most dramatic and most relevant for our purposes, was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There is simply no Supreme Court opinion which stands for the proposition that “natural born Citizen” has not tracked the changes in the scope of “citizen by birth.” Otherwise, we would need a constitutional amendment every time we changed our naturalization laws, which seems profoundly absurd.


2sun
Comment posted July 24, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

There are at least 3 categories that need to be distinguished.
1) Persons born within US jurisdiction of two citizens are clearly “Natural Born Citizens”.
2) Persons born outside US jurisdiction of two aliens are clearly aliens.
Aliens can become Naturalized Citizens by legislation, but can never become “Natural Born Citizens”.

3) Persons born of with one alien parent, and a US parent within the US.
3a) If born in the US, they are US citizens by the 14th Amendment.
3b) The contentious issue is are they “Natural Born Citizens”?
By John Jay's and “no foreign influence” and John Bingham's affirmation of born in the US of citizens, etc. I hold that these are NOT “Natural Born Citizens”.

Clarifying this 3rd category on Natural Born Citizen for a President qualification vs Citizen for Senate qualification has never been evaluated on its merits.


Alexinspace
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 12:40 am

It's amazing why all you folks are arguing about a constitutional issue – when you haven't got one anymore.The North American Union i.e USA Mexico and Canada (which you won't see on FOX NBC etc) will completely supersede your constitutional rights. The Bill Of Right is also a dead duck.Go and ask the citizens of New Oleans why your govenment disarmed them when they needed them most – second amendment folks! Go and check your president's selections of appointments to oversee your healthcare.The Obama Administration is putting two notorious biotech bullies in charge of food safety! Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. And, rBGH-using dairy farmer and Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama's choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Wolfe spearheaded anti-consumer legislation in Pennsylvania that would have taken away the rights of consumers to know whether their milk and dairy products were contaminated with Monsanto's (now Eli Lilly's) genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). This is America today.Your president has been bought and sold by big Pharma and the multinationals.You haven't had a good president since JFK for all his faults – they murdered him when he tried to tell the truth about who really runs America, and it's not Obama. God bless America – you going to need him…


JohnC
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 12:56 am

2sun wrote:

There are at least 3 categories that need to be distinguished.
1) Persons born within US jurisdiction of two citizens are clearly “Natural Born Citizens”.
2) Persons born outside US jurisdiction of two aliens are clearly aliens.
Aliens can become Naturalized Citizens by legislation, but can never become “Natural Born Citizens”.

3) Persons born of with one alien parent, and a US parent within the US.
3a) If born in the US, they are US citizens by the 14th Amendment.
3b) The contentious issue is are they “Natural Born Citizens”?
By John Jay's and “no foreign influence” and John Bingham's affirmation of born in the US of citizens, etc. I hold that these are NOT “Natural Born Citizens”.

Clarifying this 3rd category on Natural Born Citizen for a President qualification vs Citizen for Senate qualification has never been evaluated on its merits.


JohnC
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 1:26 am

I think that's a fair reading of what our dispute is over.

The question is whether “natural born Citizen” is tied to the meaning of “citizen by birth” as it was understood in 1787, or whether it is tied to the meaning of “citizen by birth” as it is currently legislated.

One main argument supports your view – the words in the Constitution should only be interpreted as they were understood to mean at the time they were adopted. I am sympathetic to that view, but it has its serious drawbacks, often unacknowledged or ignored by strict constructionists.

For example, when the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was adopted, it was intended to apply to African-Americans, who had just emerged from slavery. No one seriously thought at the time that it referred to women, who were not allowed to vote in any state, and in many states were unable to hold property as spouses. Yet no one would seriously argue today that “equal protection of the laws” as we understand it extends to protect women, even in the absence of a constitutional amendment.

As another example, we all often cite the “all men are created equal” phrase in the Declaration of Independence. We even acknowledge that at the time it was written it was only referring to white male landowners. Yet that doesn't stop even the most radical strict constructionist from concluding that that phrase has a far more universal application today than it was ever intended to have.

My point is that the meaning of certain terms have to evolve over time if they are to have any ongoing relevance to the society those terms are supposed to serve. When the Constitution was drafted, perhaps it made sense to limit citizenship by birth to the children of other citizens. And the Founding Fathers (or at least some of them) may very well have looked to this definition when they coined the term “natural born Citizen.” But the flaw was that, in doing so, the Constitution was coming up with a specific term which was undefined in that document.

But the Constitution does give us a hint of what it intended in using the term “natural born Citizen.” In addition to “natural born Citizen,” the Constitution uses the term “Citizen” in a number of places, including in the requirements for serving as a congressman. Although the term is not defined, Article I specifically gives Congress the power to create uniform rules of naturalization. It is settled law that these powers include the power to define not just naturalization, but citizenship by birth. Under this framework, the Constitution sets the basic parameters – Citizen versus natural born Citizen, but delegates the specific definitions to Congress. As we know, Congress did just that starting in 1790, with its first Naturalization Act.

There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court has ever seen it any other way, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

Furthermore, if the definition of “natural born Citizen” is subject to a particular meaning separate from current citizenship laws, why don't we treat the “Citizen” requirement for congressmen the same way? If a Congressman wasn't a “Citizen” in 1787, why should he be considered one today under similar circumstances?

On a purely pragmatic level, it would seem odd that, although the Supreme Court has regularly used the term “natural born citizen” when referring to individuals who are U.S. citizens by birth (without reference to anything other than current naturalization laws), somewhere out there lurks a near-identical evil twin called “natural born Citizen,” which has no relation to our current laws, and is tied to a historical understanding which is at best amorphous and disputed. And that such a definition, once someone can figure out what it means, can be used to overturn a presidential election when that person clearly meets “natural born citizen” as it is defined under modern law.

I just don't think Americans would be very impressed if the Supreme Court went against its own long line of decisions over hundreds of years, and decided to overturn a national election based upon navel-gazing over the supposed historical meaning of the evil twin “natural born Citizen.”


2sun
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 2:12 am

See following from blog:
Natural Born Citizen.com
———————————-
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/867…

The State Department is part of the Executive Branch. The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see URL). Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents.

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.”

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record. He stated:

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.”

——————–
See: U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT (CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007) (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)

7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents
7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be
subject to citizenship retention requirements.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act.


2sun
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 2:27 am

JohnC
Thanks for affirmation of the issues.

limit citizenship by birth to the children of other citizens.

NO: Only to “Natural Born Citizen”.
Others would be naturalized, as were all those who signed the Declaration of Independence.

And the Founding Fathers (or at least some of them) may very well have looked to this definition when they coined the term “natural born Citizen.”

They did not “coin the term”. They took it from Emmerich de Vattel's definition in The Law of Nations – which was well studied by the Constitutional Convention.

It is settled law that these powers include the power to define not just naturalization, but citizenship by birth.

That is part of the contention. “Natural Born Citizen” born to US citizens in US jurisdiction is unambiguous, irrespective of and distinct from legislation. This specifically eliminates all citizenship granted by legislation.


Bill
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

Here's the upshot of the whole 'birther' controversy. If you believe Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, you are a bonafide DUMBASS and deserve to have your own citizenship revoked! And people wonder why our nation lags behind in math and science. It's these idiots who bring down the intelligence curve of the U.S.


mae
Comment posted July 25, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

The peabody award was mistakenly awarded perhaps by his cronies. He never deserved it and until he is booted of the air CNN will continue to loose viewers. I will never watch Lou Cobbs! Thank God for alternative programs.


Alexinspace
Comment posted July 26, 2009 @ 12:46 am

It's amazing why all you folks are arguing about a constitutional issue – when you haven't got one anymore.The North American Union i.e USA Mexico and Canada (which you won't see on FOX NBC etc) will completely supersede your constitutional rights. The Bill Of Right is also a dead duck.Go and ask the citizens of New Oleans why your govenment disarmed them when they needed them most – second amendment folks! Go and check your president's selections of appointments to oversee your healthcare.The Obama Administration is putting two notorious biotech bullies in charge of food safety! Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. And, rBGH-using dairy farmer and Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama's choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Wolfe spearheaded anti-consumer legislation in Pennsylvania that would have taken away the rights of consumers to know whether their milk and dairy products were contaminated with Monsanto's (now Eli Lilly's) genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). This is America today.Your president has been bought and sold by big Pharma and the multinationals.You haven't had a good president since JFK for all his faults – they murdered him when he tried to tell the truth about who really runs America, and it's not Obama. God bless America – you going to need him…


stephenperry
Comment posted July 26, 2009 @ 4:35 am

Damnit, Florida. I blame you. You dragged the test-taker into this. You get him out. I wash my hands of the matter.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 26, 2009 @ 4:37 am

Except the evidence that you don't want to consider. Re-read Matt Taylor's response.

JohnC was actually extremely patient with you. This is the thanks he gets? That's why I rarely bother being polite and suffering through the exercise as though you people actually mean what you say.


stephenperry
Comment posted July 26, 2009 @ 4:39 am

I wonder if Mr. Berg will cite to and rely upon “Wikipedia Italian version” in his suit against Taitz, as he did in his suit against President Obama?


Centipede
Comment posted July 26, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

Dobbs is just trying to pluck some of the crazies away from Faux News. In case you didn't know, he's being beaten in the ratings wars.
http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2009/06/10…


dexteraoki
Comment posted July 27, 2009 @ 4:15 am

Your comment about the intelligence curve of the U.S. must be true since we elected a closet communist and racist as our president. Did you see his comments concerning reparations vs. entitlement spending? That was an eye opener and would have precluded him becoming president if it had come out sooner.


Methusaleh
Comment posted July 27, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

Caesarian birth was known to the Framers (since it arose during the time of Caesar, hence the name). So, where's the argument that “natural born citizen” meant that he had to be of a natural (vaginal) birth rather than a Caesarian birth. Wouldn't the argument also be that the Framers didn't want the word “vaginal” in our great founding document. What does Orly have to say about that? She seems to know everything (except how to practice law), so I wait with interest until she sets us straight.

With respect to the somewhat silly “foreign influence” arguments, Supreme Court decisions make it clear that “natural born citizen” status would not be given to children born here of emissaries from other countries or to foreign combatants who were here as part of an effort to wage war on the United States.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark makes it clear that by virtue of the 14th amendment (as well as the naturalization laws enacted after its adoption), an infant born in the U.S. to parents who were not foreign emissaries (ambassadors or consuls) or foreign combatants is a “natural born citizen.” And that case as well as Perkins v. Elg (the case which actually uses the jackpot language, and cites back to Wong Kim Ark) make clear that one's parents can't forfeit a “natural born” child's rights to his or her citizenship.

The birther arguments are quite entertianing, but they are insidious as well. These conspiracy buffs are trying to undercut the legitimacy of a President elected with large electroal college and popular vote margins. And, to a great extent, Obama's exotic foreign connections make them worried. But it's about time to stuff that racism back into the closet and move on to productive things.

What I want to know is if Obama's birth certificate (the original, long form, in ink, that was destroyed in 2001 by the State of Hawaii) says he was born “natrually” or by C-section.


Omaar
Comment posted July 28, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

Desperate to be Governed by a White Man, Joe Biden [Ugh]

That's Insanely Desperate !!

Any White Man will do…Huh
_________________________________

Provide me with [Your] Original Birth Certificate and Social Security Number…

Prove to Me, America and the World…

You are an American Citizen.

Low Life.

You have Race Hate on the Brain

A Bi-Racial Man, You Call Black, African, Mulatto, Arab or Barry [Step Fathers Name] whatever…

Barry Won the Presidency, in a Majority White Society.

Barry Won the Popular Vote.

Barry Won the Electoral College.

Barry Soetoro-Barack Obama or any other name, you wish to call him, is…

Is President Of The USA…

Barry-Barack Obama is Commander in Chief of the USA

Now, Go Have a Seizure or Cardiac Arrest or Better Still, Kill Yourself.

Denial is an Ugly Thing…Indeed.

Piss Poor Ugly Thing, to See


Omaar
Comment posted July 28, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

Desperate to Governed by a White Man, Joe Biden [Ugh]

Now That's Insanely Desperate !!

Any White Man will do…Huh
_________________________________

Provide me with [Your] Original Birth Certificate and Social Security Number…

Prove to Me, America and the World…

You are an American Citizen.

Low Life.

You have Race Hate on the Brain

A Bi-Racial Man, You Call Black, African, Mulatto, Arab or Barry [Step Fathers Name] whatever…

Barry Won the Presidency, in a Majority White Society.

Barry Won the Popular Vote.

Barry Won the Electoral College.

Barry Soetoro-Barack Obama or any other name, you wish to call him, is…

Is President Of The USA…

Barry-Barack Obama is Commander in Chief of the USA

Now, Go Have a Seizure or Cardiac Arrest or Better Still, Kill Yourself.

Denial is an Ugly Thing…Indeed.

Piss Poor Ugly Thing, to See


RedGraham
Comment posted July 29, 2009 @ 4:01 am

Still Obama refuses to produce his original BC, Indonesian adoption records , any school or college records are under wraps, the draft-registration cloudiness and the passport to Pakistan in 1981, evidence he has used more than one Social Security#, and the government gag-order on his family in Kenya look a little suspicious almost as if the birthers are right.


Jim
Comment posted July 29, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

And still, he is president. Time to go get a life Red, he's an american born citizen and our president and making up things won't change it.


jeffbarber
Comment posted July 30, 2009 @ 12:51 am

LOU DOBBS IS RIGHT ON AND SO WERE HIS GUESTS, IT IS TYPICAL OF YOU AND OTHER LIBERALS TO GIVE A “FREE PASS” TO OBAMA. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE COURAGE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS TO QUESTION AND VALIDATE AN ISSUE THAT IS VALID TO RAISE? THIS COUNTRY DESERVES THE FORTITUDE OF IT'S FOUNDING PRINCIPLES TO GET AN ANSWER THAT IS SO EASILY ATTAINABLE. THE DEMOCRATS DEMANDED IT OF JOHN MC CAIN AND HE READILY COMPLIED, WHY NOT THE SAME FOR OBAMA? WHAT IS THERE TO HIDE?
JEFF OF AZ


YeahWeCan
Comment posted August 2, 2009 @ 7:02 am

If Arnold Swartzeneger ran for president I think most of Obama's critics would push to change the constitution in order to vote for him. Obviously American voters don't care or they would not have elected him, duh!


amy334
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 9:30 am

Personally I love it, Dobbs, once had a respected career. Maybe his colleagues were not what he considered to be his intellectual peers, but hey people can have political differences and still be respected, but I don't think that made Dobbs happy. So when the time came for him to be out on his own………he showed us his true colors. Impartiality be dam*&d!

No he can go ahead and reap the shame and idiocy of those he thought were soooo out in the forefront of political thought. Good for him, a man who was blessed with a marvelous education squandered it, a man with a hispanic wife and foreign born in-laws and half breed children, just like Obama, should, or one would think could understand a little better than some with small minds, little education, and less experience in the big bad world.

“There is no shame in ignorance”, as my Grandmother would say, “the only shame is in being proud of it, ……..and in choosing to stay that way”. Wise woman she was.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 10:12 am

Yeah. How dare Lou Dobbs – a mere reporter – report on something the “Liberals” want hushed-up and buried and denied and forgotten? Has the man no sense of what your Mombasa Messiah's Ministry of Truth demands of him?

Freedom of the press? Hah! What is that compared to the arrival of the socialist millennium? All praise be to Allah, the merciful, the compassionate, and to his true prophet, Karl Marx, and then to his student, our Caliph, Barack Hussein, beloved and handsome, husband of Michelle and impregnator of many White House interns….


Tuci78
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 10:15 am

Nah. Hairplug Joe (the Delaware Plagiarist) is the lawful President of these United States. Hell, even with his brain damage, Joe knows it. Your Mombasa Messiah is just a myriad-count felon evading arrest.

Joe Biden, POTUS. Retch! That I should've lived to see such a day….


mae
Comment posted August 7, 2009 @ 6:15 am

Tuci78; you can't accept that an African American has beaten you to your own game, following your own rules under your foolish nose. Well…. well… well, you have only one choice; hang yourself because Obama will rule your brains out in the next 7.5years. There is nothing you the racists can do about is. It is called democracy and this is the greatest democracy on planet earth. Man's last best hope for all mankind…..not just whites!


mae
Comment posted August 7, 2009 @ 6:22 am

Hey tuci, you cannot accept that an African American has beaten you to your own game, following your own rules, under your foolish nose. Well.. well….. well…. Obama will rule your brains out in the next 7.5yrs. Your only option will be to go blow your own brains out. This is democracy in action. There is nothing you racists can do about it. USA is the greatest democracy on planet earth and man's last best hope for all not just whites.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 7, 2009 @ 10:19 am

What “game” mae? I haven't been part of any “game” in which I've contended against any “African American” (the polite word in my time was “negro,” as in “United Negro College Fund”) since I'd played football in high school, and then I generally pass- or run-blocked only a few such fellows. The color of the uniform mattered more than whatever level of pigmentation showed on their exposed skin.

What we have of Barry Soetoro is a Cook County machine politician, an ACORN “poverty pimp” (and apparently not a very good one) trained according to the principles of Alinsky, consorting with known felons like Bill Ayers, parlaying his relationship with Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (a radical Muslim and vitriolic anti-Semite) into the financial means and influence required to get himself into and through the most prestigious law school in the nation, using Chicago electoral rules games to screw his political opponents off the ballot just before the election in which he won his Illinois state senate seat at the outset of his sordid political career, and in short about as rotten a nominally human being as it's possible to find in the incredibly dirty theater of the Greater Chicagoland Area, a man who has lied, and cheated, and channeled, and double-dealt and deceived all his brief but sordid life, and you think my nose is foolish while you're defending him?

Whee! “This is democracy in action,” all right. The pure mob, making all the wrong decisions for all the wrong reasons, to horrible and catastrophic outcomes at the climactic moment looking around at each other, going “Wha' happened?”

Don'tcha know, mae, the Founders knew what a colossal screw up democracy really is? And that they tried to build in the mechanisms of a representative republic to blunt the damage potential of mob rule resulting in people like Barry Soetoro getting elected to high public office? They tried to limit the amount of power such malicious, scheming, crazed and deadly people could gather into their hands and – guess what? – the mob enabled Barry to get his hands on that power anyway.

It's not that he's black (he's about a quarter black, really) but that he's an out-and-out, trained, indoctrinated, thoroughgoing socialist, and socialism is really a horrible thing to inflict upon anybody, particularly this the country that you and I love.

It's not that the USA is just “man's last best hope” but that we're the only remnant of the Enlightenment left on this planet, and when we go, the Enlightenment principles of individual rights and the dignity and the value of the human being go with us.

And Barry's been committed all his live to taking those values down and destroying them.


mae1
Comment posted August 7, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

You are wasting your time. Obama will rule you for the next 7.5years. He has a God given right to rule you according to the law and 'rule you' he will. Reading your rants above gives you only one choice which amounts to one thing; scram: get lost, kill yourself, take a chill pill or go into hibernation. Whatever you do, do not disturb the rest of us law abiding, democracy loving, fair-minded, God-fearing, civilized, educated and peace-loving Americans. We accept the result of the fully democratic election that elected Barack Obama as the present of the USA and by implication the ruler of the free world. Tuci, you are pwerless and your actions are bothering on psychosis. Guaranteed healthcare which Obama will grant you will be your only hope of survival. Enjoy!!!


RedGraham
Comment posted August 8, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

So as it appears to have gone is that the birthers got punked by a set-up Kenyan-BC that no sooner was it presented to the public than some guy in Australia just happened to be ready to claim it was fake. Oh well, that still doesn't change where BHO was actually born and we still haven't seen the original BC which was almost for sure once on file in Hawaii. Fact probably is that after Barry Soetoro was adopted in Indonesia he never legally changed his name or citizenship to American. He did manage to get a passport to Pakistan in 1981 probably as an Indonesian. BHO attended three expensive colleges also as an Indonesian(or some other Foreign Student status). The Kenyan birth Grandma Obama claims to have witnessed is just a red-herring to throw us off the scent of the Indonesian citizenship. Let's see the college records & that original BC would still be nice to look at. We haven't made much progress but don't lose heart. Pray the truth is revealed soon before anymore damage is done.


Red Graham
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

What we know for sure about the Obama is he was born a Brit and became a Kenyan before he became an Indonesian. He may have held dual-citizenship for awhile but he has never ever been a natural-born U.S. citizen and he was never naturalized. He is holding office illegally and probably is an illegal-alien. He is also reported to be a bisexual Moslem who has used many different Social Security Numbers. Then there's the whole person-of-interest in a couple suspicious deaths. This guy makes Bill&Hellary look like saints.


Jim
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

What we know for sure about Red is he doesn't know or care about american laws or the constitution. And, long after Red's been taken away in the straight jacket, we DO know Obama will still be our President.


RedGraham
Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

Attn: I AM QUITTING BEING A BIRTHER. Once the Birth Certificate and college records are revealed my birther days are over. Until then I believe the Obama is not only a usurper but is technically an illegal-alien.


RedGraham
Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

Attn: I AM QUITTING BEING A BIRTHER. Once the Birth Certificate and college records are revealed my birther days are over. Until then I believe the Obama is not only a usurper but is technically an illegal-alien.


discount Louis vuitton
Comment posted September 2, 2010 @ 9:41 am

When he brought Keyes and Taitz on his show, he mentioned that he’d asked Taitz, off-air, whether the release of a long form birth certificate would satisfy her. “She said no,” Dobbs told his audience, and then directed the question to her again. “Both parents have to be citizens in order to satisfy the requirements of natural-born citizen,” Taitz responded. In other words, for the de facto leader of the movement, her questions can never go away, because Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of his son’s birth.


discount Louis vuitton
Comment posted September 2, 2010 @ 9:48 am

Taitz responded. In other words, for the de facto leader of the movement, her questions can never go away, because Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of his son’s birth.


wmv to ipad converter for mac
Comment posted October 10, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

If you are a mac user, here also provides you with WMV to iPad Converter for Mac.


Chris Strunk
Comment posted November 17, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

It ain’t over until the fat lady sings:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42235272/NOM-for-FAC-w-Summons-and-FIRST-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Strunk-v-Paterson-Et-Al-w-Exhibits-NYS-29642-08


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.