Willie Horton Ad Creator: Birther Story ‘Not Dead’

I think the key is this passage: “required applicants for special privileges to present copies of their original birth certificates”

What exactly are the “special privileges” that this applied to? Was it something like a driving license? (Unlikely). Or was it something involving “special privileges” related to indigenous Hawaiian descent.

If the latter, it wouldn’t apply to Obama anyway.

You have to be kidding. If this issue is now on Lou Dobbs’ show it can only be growing.
Where are Mr. Obama’s kindergarten records? They have his birth certificate (not COLB) and immunization records. Funny thing, his are the only ones missing from the entire class that year. Odd coincidence, that.
Mr. Obama is, admittedly, a Fulbright Scholar who attended Occidental College (undergraduate). In order to receive this scholarship to attend a US college or university he had to prove he was foreign born. Look it up.
How about his passport filing? His selective service registration?
Why would Mr. Obama spend millions in legal fees not to produce these items? He provides his tax records, much more invasive, but not these items? Odd, isn’t it?
Oh, it’s not going away by a long shot.

The DHHL corrects their website to reflect current requirements. Now it's part of the big birther conspiracy as well.

I love the birthers. I love watching them.

If the dems could get a collective spine and pass a good healthcare bill while this birther business continues to dismantle the “party of no”, I'd be a happy person.

I can't figure out how this party of pettiness, silliness, and stupidity is STILL able to throw a monkeywrench into all progress.

These dems are going to waste this opportunity. Aren't they?

I kinda like the birthers too, because they will be a continuous anchor/gadfly around the Republican's necks. They are attention whores, and they will hop from one Republican townhall meeting or function after another, never donating money, but craving the microphone, and an opportunity to promote their BS. what will be even funnier, much to the chagrin of the hosts of these events, is the applause these idiots will get. Bring them on!

Americans have every right to know whether their president is a natural-born citizen in accordance with the Constitution.

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

The original “Birthers” signed their names to “The Constitution Of The United States Of America”. Guess they wore tin-foil hats too.
Too many people are mistakenly making a direct association between “The Birthers” and the republican party. Birthers are republicans, democrats and independents. The original legal suit was filed by a democrat (a Hillary supporter) Phillip Berg.
This is not a partisan issue. Regardless of your political views, you are one of “WE THE PEOPLE”. Article II of the constitution requires that the president be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”, not just a citizen. The controversy will continue until his BONA FIDES can be substantiated. It is not just his birth certificate, a natural born citizen, is required not only to be born in this country, but to have two (2) US citizen parents. The only other president which did not meet these requirements, was Chester Arthur. President Arthur lie about his birth date. His father did not become a citizen until two years after Chester Arthur was born. Chester Arthur assumed his brother's date of birth in order to qualify. Years after the fact, the truth came out. If Obama is found not to comply with the constitutions requirements, he is not our legal president. Any laws, orders, appointments and decisions he makes would be invalid. Don't you think it is prudent we find out now.
Mr. Obama has spent over 1 million dollars of campaign and tax payers money to pay for a legal defense to keep any and all of his records from being revealed. Is that how someone, who is not hiding anything, behaves? All legal suits (over 20) have been dismissed for procedural defect, none have dismissed on its merit. Which means, until there is a real trial, and Obama releases his birth records, his education records, his selective service registration, his passport(s) ,his records as attorney in Illinois and his records as US Senator, this issue will not go away.
This is not only about whether or not he was born in Hawaii.

SEE http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

“Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”

Are we missing something? Please provide documentation (such as Kenyan or Indonesian birth certificate) that proves President Obama was born outside the US. If you cannot, please explain why you insist on fomenting untruths (such as your statement that Natural Born Citizens must have two (2) US citizen parents).

Obama is secretly working with the Axthadans, aliens who have mind controlled the military and planted agents among the right wing to continue to discredit the GOP. That and sprinkling hot babes and smooth young boys around the offices of GOP representatives, luring them into sin and degradation.

That's the only way the right can explain any of this. Once these clowns had the paperwork they wouldn't believe it. It is a cover for the racism that is sadly in both parties, more successfully repudiated by the Dems than the GOP, who still have Sessions representing the CCC wing, the “genteel Klan” of the south. Had they watched him squirm from the womb, they would still deny him, because no Black man could be president legitimately.

Yes. Birthers come from all political ideologies. The PUMAs, the Far Fight fringe and some independents have fallen for this scam. The common factor is racial gullibility.These numbnuts are simply using justifiable hatred of the President while shielding themselves with the US Constitution to escape scrutiny. Which is ironic, as the Constitution solidifies the President and his supporters argument and destroys the birthers'. They can't admit it's Obama's race that drives them to this insane conclusion. So they will keep demanding proof knowing full well they won't see it. Thus, allowing them to continue the pathological and irrational hatred of Mr. Obama. I do encourage them to continue, as it tickles me to no end to see them keep this farce up.

Mr. Weigel, McCain “found the rumors easily to debunk?” Hopefully McCain's crew had better proofreading than you do. Nonetheless, your argument has no merit. I've been on political research teams. There is no guarantee that someone will overlook a critical fact. It all comes down to who's doing the work. We all make mistakes, as you have demonstrated. Such a statement is essentially an appeal to authority, by which you hope to bypass the grit and grime of digging through the legal and factual details for your own lazy self. Shame on you. Shame on your whole profession for refusing to do an honest day's labor, instead running around saying, “the other guy said so, so it must be true.” What bilge. No, that's an insult to bilge.

Thursday, April 23, 2009
Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a “natural born Citizen” is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that allegiance only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the “natural born Citizen” clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

I just read your 2 posts and, as a lawyer myself its obvious you know nothing of the Constituton or the requirements for natural born citizenship.

“It is not just his birth certificate, a natural born citizen, is required not only to be born in this country, but to have two (2) US citizen parents.”

This statement you try to purport as truth is found no where in the Constitution OR in any Supreme Court constitutional opinion. Thus, your arguments are baseless.

It's really sad that you would waste your time trying to come up with baseless lies…but it's clear that you are a racist bigot that cannot handle the fact that Obama is a black man running the country.

Hmmmm….are you a fool? So you think all of our elected officials are in on this big conspiracy to get a black man elected POTUS? If your ideas had any merit whatsoever don't you think the conservatively controlled Supreme Court would have heard your lawsuit? Just admit your real reason for opposing Obama…your a racist bigot, at least then we can understand where you are coming from.

TRUE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Posted by Glenn Flowers on Sunday, March 01, 2009 5:57:45 PM
There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.
Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, “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; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates.”
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.” The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.
This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, “the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth.” He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.”
The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.
Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.
Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.
So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.

Glenn Flowers

POSTSCRIPT: In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.

Question: Why does a dead story need an obituary? A story dies of natural causes when people simply stop talking about it. It needs no declaration. Seeing as there are hundreds of stories showing up on Google News for Obama Birth Certificate just in the last day, I'd say this story is just taking off, no matter how hard some of those stories try to convince us that they are dead…

Just a few questions for Obama fans:

1. What United States Federal *governing authority* has *verified* that Obama meets the constitutional eligibility requirements to be the President of the United States?

2. How did they go about getting said verification?

3. And finally, why has said verification, if it exists, not been made public?

Hint: Neither Snopes.com (nor similar chain email debunking sites) nor Obama's election campaign team, nor the director of health for the state of Hawaii, are United States Federal governing authorities.

The Republican Party is imploding in front of our faces. 30% of their base (or perhaps more) seem to put forth the proposition that two seperate Hawaiian newspapers 50 years ago decided to print birth announcements for a black child named “Barack Hussein Obama” with the sole purpose of making sure that such a child would in 50 years time be eligible to become President. Then to cement this grand conspiracy, the entire government of the State of Hawaii was hijacked and made to forge documents. Tin foil hats and black helicopters!

The only governing authority that matters in the State of Hawaii. The U.S. government grants every state (and territory) the sole power to determine and record the births in the various states. There is no national birth database. Every state has their own. Hawaii (and every sane human being that has studied the facts) has said this man was born in Hawaii. End of story.

Any continuance of this story will only make the anti-Obama crowd look even dumber than their leader Sarah Palin.

“In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim.”

Who cares? There is not a single shred of evidence that Obama was born outside the country. The state of Hawaii says that they recorded his Hawaiian birth 50 years ago and they provided certification of his birth in Hawaii. States are responsible for recording the vital records of births. There isn't a national birth database, so all we have is Hawaii saying he was born there, and 2 newspapers 50 years ago confirming it.

The tin-foil-hat crowd has nothing but a debunked mistranslated quote from his step-grandmother who was confirming the birth of Obama, Sr in Kenya, not his son, who she knew was born in Hawaii and as can be heard on tape immediately after the confusing Q&A, the entire family in Kenya confirmed.

He doesn't have to show you any long form birth certificate, if it even exists. No other president in the history of the United States has been required to. I know that in Missouri, where I was born, the only form you can get from the state is the “Certification of Live Birth”. If you ask for a photocopy of the long form, they will tell you, “We only provide the COLB” it is impossible for you to get a copy of the long form. I'm pretty sure this is common (maybe not universal) throughout the United States.

To date – one of the Supreme Justices announced it takes 4 Justices to allow the Birther case to be heard. Currently 3 agree and just one more is needed. In my opinion – President Obama would not be spending hundred's of thousands of dollars to block every attempt for the courts to review his documents – which adds fuel to the fire of whether or not he is “legally” qualified to be President. If he has nothing to hide – then why is he going to such extremes to block the hearings. If he is who he claims to be – then he should provide the documents to the courts and allow the proceedings to take place.

Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in the state of Hawaii. That was the week the Berlin Wall went up.

Coincidence? I wonder.

This evil, subversive plot has been in the making for damned near forty-eight years! By all evidence, since the moment of Obama's birth! Here is a question that all good and decent Americans should demand an immediate answer to: Was the newspaper, the Honolulu Advertiser, in on the scheme when they printed little Barack's bogus birth announcement on August 9, 1961? Just where the hell does that paper lean editorially? To the hard Left, I strongly suspect. Wouldn't that just figure!

The NAACP, in coercion with the American Communist Party, Democracy NOW and Ed Asner, concocted this evil plot deep in the basement of Norm Chomskey's home in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the midst of a week-long peyote mushroom binge. The elevation of this dangerous and subversive man to the highest office in this grand and glorious land of ours is only the first step in their dastardly plan. Their next objective will be to force our daughters – our little personifications of patriotism and purity – to court and co-mingle with NEGROES.

Before very long our children – your children – will be physically forced to memorize whole chapters of James Baldwin's “Native Son” and “The Autobiography Of Malcolm X”. Trust me, it's only a matter of time.

They must be stopped. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the country that we all hold so dear to our freedom-loving hearts. America is falling; victimized by forces who would put a foreign-born A-Rab in the seat that was once held by the sainted Ronald Reagan – RONALD REAGAN, I TELL YOU!

My friends, now is not the time for the faint-of-heart. It a time for boldness and stoutness of mind and spirit. Only our collective intestinal fortitude will defeat the Liberal cabal – those nattering nabobs of negativism – who would burn our beloved country down. The time has come to give America back to the real Americans. My fellow citizens, you ignore me at your own peril….

And one more thing we must never ever forget: Barack and Michelle Obama named their two daughters, “Sasha” and “Malia”. What's that all about?

Of course, what you just read is meant as satire. Only a complete and utter fool could possibly take any of it seriously. The really disturbing thing, however, is the fact that there are millions of people out there who would read those last eight paragraphs and wouldn't even come close to getting the joke. While there is plenty of satirical gold to be siphoned from the bottomless mine that these lunatics have provided us with, they have created a dangerous atmosphere that is enabling the nuttiest angels of the American nature. That is something that would do us all well to think about.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Obama's Eligibility to be President

Use of the term “birthers” to describe those who doubt and challenge Obama's eligibility mimics a common childhood tactic: calling your opponent names to win an argument in the absence of facts. The facts: 1) Obama's true long form birth certificate has not been provided for examination; 2) the DNC during the election campaign posted on its website an image of a computer-generated Hawaii certificate of live birth – which proves nothing even if it were authentic, and it has been exposed by experts as fraudulent; 3) transcripts and official records from his college days (which could shed light on whether he was registered as a U.S citizen) have never been released; 4) several lawsuits have been filed to obtain his records; some cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court; others have been dismissed for plaintiff “lack of standing”.

Framers of the U.S. Constitution, to insure loyalty, required Presidents to be natural born citizens. Laws in effect at Obama's birth in 1961 specified that if a child was not born in the U.S. or its territories, at least one parent had to be an American citizen for five years after turning 14; Obama's mother was 18 at his birth, too young to confer his citizenship. Obama in his book states that he was born in Hawaii (a U.S. Territory in 1961), yet there is ample evidence that he was not – evidence that he was born in Kenya.

Critics of “birthers” ridicule the movement as conspiracy theories. One should ask, instead, about whether there is a conspiracy among Obama's administration, his adoring media, and politically correct politicians and judges, to stonewall the public by sitting on the story and reporting nothing about it. Until very recently the silence has been deafening!

Why won't Obama just release his true long form birth certificate and his college records for examination – so we can all see that this has just been a silly misunderstanding? Isn't that what a legitimate candidate and U.S. President would do?

The problem with not releasing these documents is that Obama is seen by growing numbers of Americans as hiding evidence that he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President. This feeling progresses to doubts that anything Obama says is true. Doubts are increasing about his loyalty to the U.S., based on his statements to, and treatment of our adversaries versus our traditional allies, and his apparent trashing of our Constitution and turning our system away from market-driven to socialism.

Enough talk about “birthers”! Let's see Obama's true long form birth certificate (if it exists) and his college transcripts. Obama, pick up your phone and make that happen.

Obama was a Constitutional Law lecturer for over 10 years at University of Chicago Law School and was President of Harvard Law Review. Obama knows what is in all the records he didn't release. Based on his careful analysis of his own eligibility as a Constitutional Law lecturer at University of Chicago, Obama decided to keep all of his records sealed.

Facts like the above from Glenn Flowers that very few know are ones that Obama long ago studied. Based on that, Obama concluded that if people saw all of his records at the same time, and researched the law, that they would conclude Obama was not eligible. So he has kept his records sealed. Will they be kept from his own Presidential Library? His Obama the only president who will withhold his own long form birth certificate from his own Obama Presidential Library? As well as all the other sealed records. Does any other presidential library not have the birth certificate, kindergarten records, etc? What sort of person seals his kindergarten records? A person who taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago and knows what is in his kindergarten records. Will Obama withhold his own kindergarten records from his own presidential library?

Forget the birth certificate. The real issue is that regardless of where he was born, Obama is ineligible simply because he possessed Kenyan/British citizenship at birth thru his father. Read what Vattel said in “The Law of Nations.” Vattel was very influential in the early United States, and he makes clear that if someone's father is not a citizen then the child cannot be natural born. Also see the U.S. Supreme Court discussions in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814) and also Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874).

This isn't a matter of conspiracy or speculation; it's simply a matter of historical legal fact.

Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo are good sources on this particular argument.

So let me get this straight…

You are saying despite the fact that is was COMMON KNOWLEDGE that President Obama's father was a Kenyan, he somehow “hood-winked” EVERYONE to overlook THAT FACT, including Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Congress, prominent pundits, conservative analysts, constitutional scholars, and the American public, along with Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, not to mention the entire Republican Party.

Please stop being so gullible.

Just because someone writes something and puts it on the internet, doesn't make it true.

From David Hahn, “Publisher, StatePaper.com ” August 5, 2009.

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as “racist,” “birther,” or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being “too liberal” or an “Obama lover” by some of our most prolific critics.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.

And now we've got a “Liberal” Nebraska newspaper advising Barry to cough up his birth certificate. “Not dead,” Mr. Weigel? I'd say instead “heating up.”

If Barry can cough up a birth certificate that wasn't completed in the Maternity Ward of Coast Provincial General Hospital in exotic Mombasa, Zanzibar (now Kenya).

Everybody ready to hear our TelePrompTer-in-Chief reading the Fifth Amendment?

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain until he was adopted in Indonesia anyway.