Fifty-One Percent of North Carolina Whites Doubt Obama’s Citizenship

By
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 12:36 pm

More from that PPP poll: That high number of North Carolinians who say Obama wasn’t born in the United States is largely built on white voters. Thirty percent of white voters say Obama is foreign-born, 49 percent say he was born in the United States, and 21 percent don’t know.

Picture 10

That’s a total of 51 percent of North Carolina whites who don’t know, or don’t believe, that Obama was born in America. Back in July, I estimated, based on previous polls, that as many as 70 percent of white Southerners doubted Obama’s American citizenship. North Carolina was actually one of the less racially-polarized states in the South last year, with 35 percent of white voters backing Obama over McCain. By contrast, only 10 percent of white voters in Alabama went for Obama.

And among which voters is the knowledge of Obama’s birthplace the sketchiest?

Picture 13

Picture 11

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

94 Comments

RLA
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
– Abraham Lincoln

Obama needs to think about this.


captainsteve
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

51% is good. People are waking up.

The questions won’t go away until obama releases his hidden records. All he has to do is make the following official public statement,

“I Barack Obama authorize the State of Hawaii to release and make public all of my records on file.”

That's it. Issue over. But he won't because he's a fraud!! Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What and why is he hiding?

And maybe more disturbing is why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there's a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States? The answer is that Obama’s very own supporters also know he’s a fraud!

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US YOUR LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND OTHER RECORDS!!!!!


willcrawlwell
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

I don't know if Obama was actually born in the U.S.A. or not.

What I do know, is that he won't address the issue. WHY?

All the White House to do is produce the long form hard copy birth certificate. Game over.

They won't. WHY?


Constitutionalist
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

Based on Obama's not releasing pertinent documentation, why anyone NOT doubt Obama's natural-born citzenship?

The headline for your article should read: “Fifty Four Per Cent of North Carolina Actually Convinced of Obama's Natural Born Citizenship”

BTW, I'm assuming that when articles like these use the word “Citizenship” that the phrase “Natural Born Citizenship” is actually intended. Hopefully, authors are aware that the difference is absolutely fundamental to this entire issue. Just part of the overal carelessness with which the media is approaching this.


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

The refusal to accept reality does not mean reality ceases to exist. Simply amazing to see such delusion at work.


Matt Taylor
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

If there is a revolution it will be racist republicans vs Americans. What side will you be on?


JohnC
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

You know why? Because it's pointless to try to appease to people who are inclined to believe that an official Hawaii birth certificate is a fake. (And yes, the Certification of Live Birth IS Hawaii's official birth certificate. More on that here: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin…)

Obama released his birth certificate last year to cater to people just like you in a vain attempt to resolve conspiracy theories. Look what good that did him.

Why would he give even more credibility to kooky conspiracy theories by issuing yet another document to be parsed by conspiracy theorists?

Obama's right – give the birthers enough rope and they'll hang themselves.


Ant
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

The whole birther thing has pretty much jumped the shark.

No one but the brain dead who can't figure out if Hawaii is a state or not still buys into that nonsense.


Ant
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 9:00 pm

He released a legal document from the state of Hawaii certifying that he was born in Honolulu. How is that not pertinent?


Ant
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

Because the issue has nothing to do with where he was born, and everything to do with the genetic background of his birth.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 11:46 pm

Love the grammar, it emphasizes the Tarzan/Tonto/Frankenstein aspect of birther kooks. “Why Obama NOT show picture Mongo? Mongo think Obama not born Mongo's cave!”


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted August 11, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

Luckily Reagan plotted out the locations for the camps for those traitors to this nation who think that their pledge to this country does not extend to allowing a black man from the opposing political party to take his rightful role as executive of the nation and commander in chief of the military. The Reconstruction after the next Civil War may not be as warm and wonderful as the last one was, and hopefully no one will be so lame as to make up romantic stories after the fact about it.


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 12:13 am

The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” may be important on the presidential eligibility issue, but it isn't important in examining the relative ignorance/stupidity/gullibility of the average person.

The fact is, half of North Carolina whites are prepared to accept the proposition that the President of the United States, the Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, is not even a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen. That is jaw-droppingly, spectacularly asinine, and it demonstrates the fertile ground from which the birthers spring.

Sorry if this comes across elitist to the true birther believers, but those people are stupid, plain and simple. They may be nice folks, good Christians, and friendly neighbors. But they are stupid as the day is long, and should be grateful that we no longer require literacy tests in order to vote.


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 12:21 am

“That's it. Issue over.”

Bullcrap. It will never end. Obama released an official Hawaiian birth certificate last year to calm those who thought he wasn't born in Hawaii. All that did was create a new cottage industry of myths and conspiracy theories. Obama isn't stupid enough to believe that he'll be any more successful the second time around. He's not hiding. He's sensibly realized there's no political or moral point in placating those who are determined never be convinced of his Hawaiian birth. I applaud him for it.


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 12:22 am

If Lincoln thought the people can simply overthrow the government or secede, what in the hell was the Civil War about?


captainsteve
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 1:33 am

Bullcrap? That's you and your fraud POS messiah. The “official” certificate means nothing and more and more people are figuring that you. You should STFU and crawl back up his as$ where you love it so much.

The questions about obummer continue to mount! No there is new evidence about his Fake Birth certificate and that Obama’s mother didn’t live at claimed address in Hawaii when obama was born

The records from a Honolulu title search, obtained by WND, document 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was purchased in 1958 by Orland Scott Lefforge, a University of Hawaii professor, and his wife/companion Thelma Young, who lived at the property and remained owners into the 1970s.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…

And the Globe is running an article about obama’s fake birth certificate. Granted they’re a “gossip rag” but then “The Enquirer” busted John Edwards in spite of denial after denial by him and all the major news agencies.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…

Nothing obama says has any meaning if he can't be trusted.

Watch this video. You’ll see obama lie like a dog in his very own words.

http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-emperor-news-obam…

People need to wake up and see this lying fraud for who he is, an America hating, Saudi King bowing, dictator loving, former cocaine addict, racist Kenyan usurper dirt-bag Chicago thug!


captainsteve
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 1:34 am

The questions about obummer continue to mount! No there is new evidence about his Fake Birth certificate and that Obama’s mother didn’t live at claimed address in Hawaii when obama was born

The records from a Honolulu title search, obtained by WND, document 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was purchased in 1958 by Orland Scott Lefforge, a University of Hawaii professor, and his wife/companion Thelma Young, who lived at the property and remained owners into the 1970s.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI

And the Globe is running an article about obama’s fake birth certificate. Granted they’re a “gossip rag” but then “The Enquirer” busted John Edwards in spite of denial after denial by him and all the major news agencies.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI

Nothing obama says has any meaning if he can't be trusted.

Watch this video. You’ll see obama lie like a dog in his very own words.

http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-emperor-news-obam

People need to wake up and see this lying fraud for who he is, an America hating, Saudi King bowing, dictator loving, former cocaine addict, racist Kenyan usurper dirt-bag Chicago thug!


captainsteve
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 1:49 am

Your post is ridiculous. The questions won’t go away until obama releases his hidden records. All he has to do is make the following official public statement,

“I Barack Obama authorize the State of Hawaii to release and make public all of my records on file.”

That's it. Issue over. But he won't because he's a fraud!! Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What and why is he hiding?

And maybe more disturbing is why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there's a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States? The answer is that Obama’s very own supporters also know he’s a fraud!

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US YOUR LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND OTHER RECORDS!!!!!


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 2:15 am

Utter bullcrap indeed. The COLB is not an “official” certificate. It is an official certificate. The long form certificate is no longer the official birth certificate issued by Hawaii. Rather, it is the historical document from which the COLB derives its information. To question the COLB is to suggest that the Hawai Department of Health fraudulently misrepresented information from the original document. But we know what's on the original document, because the Department of Health already used it to publish the two birth announcements in August 1961, shortly after Obama's birth was registered by the State of Hawaii.

As for where Ann Dunham lived, the WND article proves nothing. Just because Ann Dunham did not own the residence listed in the birth announcement does not mean she didn't rent from there. And why would an eighteen-year-old student own a house anyway? (Or have the money to travel to Kenya to boot.) Furthermore, your theory doesn't explain how Barack Obama Sr had a residence at 625 11th Ave. in Kaimuki at the time. Why would he have a residence there if he were in Kenya or somewhere else?

I'll leave your silly rantings against Obama himself – or for anyone who doesn't harbor a drooling hatred for him – for someone else to bother with.


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 2:27 am

No, the questions will always be there. If the long-form were ever released, within seconds “experts” would proclaim it a forgery, a fake, a fraud. WND would hire typographical experts to show how it couldn't have been produced in 1961. Others would claim that the pixels are misaligned, proving an alteration took place. Others would demand proof that the doctor listed was real, and start houding the hospital itself. Others will claim that it was actually created on the hearsay of Ann Dunham, and how the events represented never actually took place. It will never end, and WND will find never-ending new angles on the long-form “questions.”

The fact is, birthers such as yourself are convinced Obama is a phoney. Nothing I could say, no document ever put in front of you or placed in your hands will ever change that. (Although you have no problem believing WND's slanted reporting at face value – but I digress.) For every piece of evidence you come across, there will be a hundred new “questions” plaguing this so-called “evidence.”

If Obama really had something to hide, he never would have made the effort to obtain his birth certificate from the State of Hawaii to begin with. And the reaction from people like you has proven it wasn't worth it.

By not releasing the long-form, he's doing his birth hospital a favor by keeping people like you from endlessly hounding it with your idiotic theories.


captainsteve
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 3:11 am

I've read your other posts. Your obviously too stupid to debate me. Yes you regurgitate your “talking points” but you're not smart enough to understand them. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the children, “it's too much for you now but when you grow up you'll understand.”

Now STFU and go crawl back up Dingle Barry's arse.

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US YOUR LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND OTHER RECORDS!!!!!


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 3:32 am

Your fanatical, hate-filled, substance-free ranting only proves the point that reasonable people shouldn't waste time catering to you.


captainsteve
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 5:44 am

I don't expect anybody to cater to me. I worked hard and got rich on my own. The only people I hate are you and your loser welfare scum obumer lovers. You are the ones that want to be catered to. You're too pathetic to become a success on your own so you want the Kenyan to steal it from me and give it to you. Well it's not going to happen. Get off you as$ and do something worthwhile, Scumbag.


JohnC
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 6:13 am

Well I'm very happy that you're rich in your world, but on this board you're an equal to everyone else, including us “lazy” bums. And let me be the first to thank you for letting us share your wealth. I didn't realize tonight's dinner was on you.

On to the one meager substantive point you inadvertently made, I find it odd that, although Obama has to bend over backward to produce documents to your satisfaction well beyond what is necessary to demonstrate his eligibility to serve as President of the United States, I'm the one who needs to be “catered to.” I guess I missed that logic somewhere along the way.

(By the way, if Obama was born in Mombassa in 1961 as the birthers claim, he's actually Zanzibarian, not Kenyan. Get your lies straight.)


Randwulf
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

“Love the grammar, it emphasizes….” should be “I love the grammar. It emphasizes…”


Randwulf
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

Does that mean the “Americans” will be composed of a bunch of Walmart style, miscegemorph, freaks? I'll be with the “racist republicans”. They also tend to be gun collectors and military service types. So it should be over fairly quickly.


Matt Taylor
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

Oh yeah because everyone knows that only Republicans go into the military right. Thats why OBAMA got more support than McCain from the military.


statguy
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

WOW – a whole 749 people were surveyed – what a great basis to start a poll from. Way to go Mr. Weigel you were able to copy and paste garbage data and call reporting.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 12, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

Interesting reading.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/%252522natur…


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 12:13 am

It is interesting, but let's make one thing clear – this has no absolutely no bearing on the natural born citizenship of persons born in the United States. Here is the relevant language from the Naturalization Act of 1790:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or 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…

The key point here for our purposes is that this statute, by its explicit terms, does not apply to persons born in the United States. That's because the United States borrowed wholesale the common law concept of “natural born subject,” which provides that nearly all persons born within the boundaries of the state become subjects as a result. We simply called such persons “natural born citizens” after independence, but there was not the slightest bit of controversy in contemporary court decisions as to the origin or meaning of this term as it applied to people born in the United States. I can provide some of those decisions if you are skeptical.

This law, however, determines whether a person born outside the United States is a natural born citizen. It provides that a person born outside the United States is a natural born citizen if (1) both of his or her parents were citizens, and (2) the father had been resident in the United States at some point in his life.

It is worth noting that courts in the early 19th century frequently used the term “natural born citizen” to refer to what we would call “citizenship by birth.” That is, courts often divided citizens into exactly two mutually exclusive categories: (1) naturalized citizens and (2) natural born citizens. In turn, all citizens were distinguished from “aliens” and “foreigners,” terms which were used interchangeably.

Since these cases invariably dealt with persons born in the United States, it technically isn't entirely clear whether a person born outside the U.S. but nonetheless a citizen by birth would be a “natural born citizen,” but the wording of the 1790 Act is suggestive that “natural born citzen” popularly meant a person who was born a citizen, regardless of where he was born.

It is possible that Congress eventually saw the term “natural born” in front of citizen as redundant since, by the terms of the statute, the person would be a citizen by birth, which would explain why “natural born” in front of “citizen” was stricken from the 1795 revision of the Act without any substantive change in the provisions. Or, it could mean that the Congress subsequently determined that persons born outside the United States could not be “natural born,” but there is simply zero evidence to suggest that anyone took this position, and the courts for years continued to treat “natural born citizens” and “naturalized citizens” as the two sole, mutually-exclusive categories of U.S. citizens. There is not a single decision I have ever seen that has held that a person could be a U.S. citizen, but neither “natural born” or “naturalized.”


yukondave
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 1:29 am

“I am not a crook”

I am sad to say that Mr. Obama is becoming more Presidential every day. Spending $1.94 Million dollars to not answer a $10 question sounds crooked to me. Lets face it, even if the birthers are right, I am confident my President could find someone to create a birth record that proves he is Dick Cheney’s Hawaiian brother. The State of Hawaii charges $10 to send the certified copy of your birth certificate to a court. According to the Federal Election Commission, in the first 6 months of 2009 alone, my President has paid the law firm of Perkins Cole $1.94 Million Dollars since becoming President to not give the court that certificate. I don’t know which side is craziest, the Birthers that say he is Canadian or the Anti-Birthers that deny the obvious fact that the President is non-transparently acting like a crook. Change?

In regards to newspaper announcements and websites publishing Mr. Obamas birth certificate, they still do not explain why he does not send that already published birth certificate to the court. At the request of Mr. Obama, he has not allowed anyone to receive and confirm his original records. He has allowed a controlled viewing of a document to a couple of web sites but that is not the same as furnishing a $10 copy to a court of law. You see you can fool a website and not face felony charges.


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 1:33 am

From my perspective, it is you who are the stupid one and unAmerican to boot. Why you would allow any person to take the highest office in the land without proper vetting is simply mind boggling to me.


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 1:39 am

It's not pertinent because the information contained in that document could be complete fabrications. Parents (& grandparents) were allowed to provide verbal and uncorroborated testimony re. the birth of a child when the birth did not take place in a hospital or in the presence of a doctor or midwife. We simply have no way of knowing what is the truth. We do know that 'African', as reported on that document, is not a legitimate race which really brings the validity of the document into question.


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 1:43 am

“No, the questions will always be there. If the long-form were ever released, within seconds “experts” would proclaim it a forgery, a fake, a fraud.”

Hogwash. If the document arrives sealed at an official office directly from the Hawaiian Records Office, then there would be no conflict. It is, however, irrelevant since Barry is NOT eligible to be the POTUS because his father was a British subject and was NOT a U.S. citizen. Our government has failed in it's collective responsibility to protect the Constitution!


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 1:49 am

Any State has the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln shredded the Constitution and got hundreds of thousands of men killed in the process. He is no saint.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 1:58 am

So, if we suppose that Barack H. Obama Sr. was on a student visa status during the years in which he attended colleges and universities in the United States, then, he was not a “resident” of the United States but rather a visitor or “resident alien”. And therefore, he was not a citizen, at any time or in any legal sense. It would seem that by any standard or legal interpretation, he could have in no way conferred any type of U.S. citizenship status on his son. So, no matter how you slice it, BHO Jr. is left with only one U.S. citizen for a parent and she fell short of the age requirement, being that she was only 18 years old when she gave birth. She would have had to have been 19.

Now when you put this with the fact that no original birth document has been produced by Obama to show which hospital he was born in or what doctor attended, you have another problem. There really is nothing in any document thus far produced that can even pinpoint the scene of the crime. He has no real birth alibi. Nobody has come forth saying that they saw him born in Hawaii, and therefore, technically on U.S. soil. Not any signature on anything.

So, we are left with no parents to give him “natural born” status and a birthplace that still not been adequately documented with a real, original, long form of the Hawaiian birth certificate. It is just going to be a continuing problem and will probably require some sort of legal action in a court of law.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 4:07 am

I think if Obama had trouble obtaining a passport before he ran for president, it would have set off a few warning bells, don't you think?


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 4:10 am

By your logic, there's no way ANY document would be of any use, because ANY document can be forged, even one issued on authority of a U.S. state. So if we can't be sure of anything, why seek any other information if it is futile? Why should we even have this discussion about Obama's birth?


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 5:48 am

The thing that you should note about Natural Born is that it was a condition our founding fathers could not meet. Our first 10 Presidents had to use the supplemental language “unless you are a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”. Our founding fathers were born British Citizens and had British Citizen as parents. They were not Natural Born! Senator Obama had a non American, British Citizen, father and because of the British Nationality Act of 1948 he himself was born a British Citizen at the moment of his birth. How is he any different than our first 10 Presidents? The only difference is, he was not an American citizen 222 years ago when our Constitution was adopted. How can anyone think this man is a Natural Born American Citizen? Could Tony Blair or even Arnold Swartzeneger be considered Natural Born and become a President of the United States of America. How about Hugo Chavez?


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 6:15 am

Except that you will dispute that the seal was legitimate, the office is official, that the Hawaiian Records Office sent it, and that the Records office handled it in a legitimate manner. Why should we believe otherwise with all of the absurd conspiracy theorizing thus far? So, no, it will never end, and so there's no point wasting time on it. You will have to remain unsatisfied.

And as far as Obama's natural born citizen status goes, what you have made is an assertion that Obama is not elibigle for the presidency on the basis of his father's citizenship without the slightest bit of factual support. Words are cheap. Let's see your basic argument.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 6:17 am

Look, either Lincoln supported insurrections or he didn't. You can't have it both ways. Please make up your mind first.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 6:38 am

So, if we suppose that Barack H. Obama Sr. was on a student visa status during the years in which he attended colleges and universities in the United States, then, he was not a “resident” of the United States but rather a visitor or “resident alien”. And therefore, he was not a citizen, at any time or in any legal sense. It would seem that by any standard or legal interpretation, he could have in no way conferred any type of U.S. citizenship status on his son.

You are correct. Barack Obama Sr. could not confer citizenship status on his son. But because Barack Jr. was born in the United States, his citizenship status is obtained through the place of his birth, not through the status of his parents (q.v. common law natural born subjects/citizens and the Fourteenth Amendment). So you have raised a true but irrelevant point.

So, no matter how you slice it, BHO Jr. is left with only one U.S. citizen for a parent and she fell short of the age requirement, being that she was only 18 years old when she gave birth. She would have had to have been 19.

Partially true, but again not relevant to the facts. The law you are speaking of applies only in the case of persons born outside the United States. Because Obama was born in Hawaii, the Fourteenth Amendment, and not this statute, determines his citizenship at birth. (FYI – That law was revised down to 16 years old with a 1986 revision of the law, although it was not made retroactive.)

Now when you put this with the fact that no original birth document has been produced by Obama to show which hospital he was born in or what doctor attended, you have another problem. There really is nothing in any document thus far produced that can even pinpoint the scene of the crime. He has no real birth alibi.

No original birth document is necessary, except for those people who don't believe official, state-issued birth certificates. And those people are just as likely to disregard the original long-form certificate, which itself is only useful to the extent that what it purports to be true is believed. After all, the long-form certificate is itself not first-hand evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth, either, but only evidence that someone claimed at the time Obama was born in Hawaii. Naturally, birthers will dispute it right out of the gate, and then the demand will be that Obama cough up a video or photograph of his birth, or a DNA sample of the hospital room in which he was purportedly born. It will never end.

Nobody has come forth saying that they saw him born in Hawaii, and therefore, technically on U.S. soil. Not any signature on anything.

Well, if everyone who was present at the time and place of YOUR birth had passed away except yourself, does that mean YOU could no longer prove where you were born? According to your own logic, that's what you're saying.

So, we are left with no parents to give him “natural born” status and a birthplace that still not been adequately documented with a real, original, long form of the Hawaiian birth certificate. It is just going to be a continuing problem and will probably require some sort of legal action in a court of law.

Again, Obama's parents don't confer him natural born statuts – his birth on U.S. soil is the only requirement necessary, and he passes that test. And as I said, birthers will never be satisfied with any evidence, official birth certificate, long-form birth certificate, contemporary birth announcements, etc. It's a waste of time catering to that sort of mentality.

As for legal action, dream on. No court is going to find standing for anyone challenging Obama's eligibility, if even if one could argue it should. But if a court against all odds decided to accept the challenge, Obama could present his Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii, which on its very face states that it is “prima facie evidence” of his Hawaiian birth, and that would be the end of it. The plaintiff would have to present convincing evidence that the COLB was somehow forged or inaccurate, evidence which as of now has never been revealed.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 6:50 am

Obviously, the Founding Fathers were faced with a predicament. On the one hand, they wanted people who were born with an allegiance to their country, but there was no such country until they founded it. Fortunately, because they wrote the Constitution, they were able to make a convenient exception for themselves. It's not pretty, but it had to be done, otherwise no one could serve as President of the United States for the first couple generations of our country's history.

Senator Obama had a non American, British Citizen, father and because of the British Nationality Act of 1948 he himself was born a British Citizen at the moment of his birth. How is he any different than our first 10 Presidents?

(First of all, the 10 presidents who benefited from the natural born citizen exception were not the first 10. John Tyler and James Polk were natural born citizens, followed by Zachary Taylor, who was the last president to serve who was born prior to 1787.)

How can I put this – when the above 10 presidents were born, there WASN'T a United States of America to be born in. However, they WERE natural born subjects of the United Kingdom. When Obama was born, there was a United States, he was born in it, and he became a natural born citizen in the same way that the Founding Fathers were natural born subjects of their respective country of birth.

How can anyone think this man is a Natural Born American Citizen? Could Tony Blair or even Arnold Swartzeneger be considered Natural Born and become a President of the United States of America? How about Hugo Chavez? Usama Bin Laden?

Your logical skills are not very impressive. None of the above persons were born on U.S. soil. Had they been born on U.S. soil, they would be natural born citizens. QED


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

No one is arguing that Article II, Section 1 isn’t in full force. The question is what U.S. citizens does it apply to.

Modern commentators, including dicta from Supreme Court decisions, have taken an expansive view that “natural born citizen” means anyone who is a citizen at birth under existing law.

But let’s suppose we take the more restrictive view that “natural born citizen” has a fixed and historical meaning outside of what we currently understand as citizenship by birth. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the common law rule of “natural born subjects” was firmly established in this country. Wong Kim Ark states this clearly, but you can conduct an independent review of contemporary court decisions to see for yourself.

A “natural born subject” is one who is born in the monarch’s realm, whether by historical accident or as a function of his parents’ residence. There is absolutely no historical evidence that the United States, or any of the states, changed the substance of this rule when it began to refer to “natural born citizens.”

Thus, even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the historical definition of “natural born citizen” was the same as it always had been – if you’re born in this country, subject to negligible exceptions, you are a citzen of this country. I.e. you are “natural born” as distinguished from “naturalized.”

So assuming that not a single congressional enactment alters the meaning of “natural born Citizen,” which is a fair argument, at even it most restrictive interpretation, that term encompasses virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, including President Barack Obama.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

I like the part about the taking of the oath. Did BHO Sr. ever do that? Because if he didn't, he doesn't qualify as someone who would be able to confer Natural Born Citizen status to BHO Jr.

FIRST CONGRESS . Sess.II. Chap. 3. 1790
Chap. III. — An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)

Section I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall
have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of
two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law
court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one
year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good
character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of
the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such
court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person
shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the
time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the
children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or 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: Provided Also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a
citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was
proscribed.(a)
Approved, March 26, 1790.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

JohnC, Your logical skills of deception are very impressive, great post. But, are you stating that if Usama Bin Laden's mother had been illegally in the US of A at the time of his birth and then taken her new born son back to Syria to raise as a terrorist, he would be eligible to become POTUS? JohnC, look up John Jays letter to George Washington dealing with adding Natural Born to the Constitution to protect our America from foreign influence & destruction. Being born on American Soil is only one third of the requirement of being Natural Born. The second third is having the Blood of an American Citizen father at the time of your birth, and the last third is the same for your mother being an American Citizen herself.
Nice try though.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

The only reason there are any recognizable borders or any minimal concepts of a nation state anywhere in Africa is because the Europeans created them. They (black Africans) are just tribal people chopping at each other with machetes and raping what remains of their victims. I strongly suspect that cannibalism still runs rampant.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

Are you referring to the new concept of the “military” or the old one that was composed mostly of men and was trained to go into combat situations instead of just providing another form of government jobs with benefits. We could really trim down the size of it and save a bunch of money. I see people here in Colorado Springs walking around in Army uniforms and think, wow, WTF, never saw anything like that in uniform in my day. I don't even know how many of them pass the basic physical requirements anymore. The must have really relaxed things in recent years. Have you got any link to post that substantiates you claim?


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

In 1795, they saw they had made a mistake by using “natural born citizens:” in the above Rule of Naturalization. They removed “Natural Born” and left the much more inclusive “citizen”. It is thought by some, that the Presidential Requirement of being Natural Born was the reason Natural Born was removed from this Rule. Therefore persons holding citizenship under this rule after 1795 are not Natural Born and therefore are not eligible to become POTUS. Why else would they have removed “Natural Born”? This makes it much clearer, what they really wanted to state, than if they had originally used “citizen” back in 1790. The only time Natural Born is used in any document is in the requirements for the office of President. By removing Natural Born there can be only on conclusion. They wanted to exclude there citizens from the office of President.


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

Secession and insurrection are two different animals. The Southern states seceded and were subsequently attacked (by a foreign power if you will) and conquered. That was both unConstitutional and unAmerican. But then who cares about the Constitution anyway? We have shredded it so badly it's hardly worth keeping around any longer.

On the citizenship issue, please note that Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Therefore, Article II, Section 1 SHOULD BE in full force and effect (since the 14th did not address Presidential qualifications nor the definition of 'natural born citizen' said definition being in the purview of the judiciary and not the legislature).


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

I've already stated that the birth certificate is irrelevant. Barry was born a British subject at birth and that disqualifies him per the 'natural born citizen' clause of the Constitution. My reference is Vattel's “Law of Nations” which is the only resource in which I've seen the term defined.


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

I'm not talking about forgeries although based on the research done on the document I'm inclined to agree that the COLB presented online IS a forgery. I'm suggesting that the information contained in the birth records was a fabrication of Barry's mother at the time of his birth. If, as we suspect, Barry was not born in a Hawaiian hospital or attended by a doctor/midwife, then there is considerable reason to believe that the data contained in that document are lies.

“Why should we even have this discussion about Obama's birth?”

We shouldn't; it's a smoke-screen. Obama is a usurper and a traitor based on his father's nationality and British subject status which passed to Barry at birth. He does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen and I will never consider him my President. My only point in even participating in these discussions is to raise the level of concern from 51% to 55% or higher.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

This statute deals with exactly three issues:

(1) How an alien can become a citizen.

(2) How a child born outside of the United States can become a natural born citizen (i.e. a citizen at birth).

(3) How individual previouslys prohibited from becoming citizens may nonetheless become citizens.

First, all of the substantive provisions in the 1790 Act have obviously changed substantially over the past two hundred years. Second, having said that, none of these issues are relevant to the natural born citizenship of a person born in the United States.

You are correct that Barack Obama, Sr. did not confer natural born citizenship on his son. For that matter, neither did his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. What conferred his natural born citizenship was the geographic fact that his birth took place on U.S. soil. That's all you need.


MarieDevine
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

The issue is more than born in the US; it is about being a dual citizen with dual loyalties to Indonesia or Kenya. It is important; he can end the discussion by releasing his simple school, health, and passport documents. It needs to be cleared in court, because we are seeing dangerous signs in his actions and a difference between what he says and what reality is. He has dangerous connections that become more understandable as he leads.

http://rightsoup.com/right-sightings-20/
Link: Video: Obama’s Communist Influences: Youtube

Communist Ties Behind B. Obama – Axelrod & Rham Emanuel
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/2121712/…

Twitter:
Sending: Psychopolitics-Communist Address of Health Care and Control. “Soviet Art of Brain Washing” http://www.divine-way.com

At the Divine-Way.com website see my comments and what the Communist teacher said was the great danger that could stop the Communist plan to rule through the health care plan and how it must be overcome. Mr. Beria was addressing American students at Lenin University before the course on PSYCHO-POLITICS.

PSYCHOPOLITICS – the art and
science of asserting and maintain-
ing dominion over the thoughts and
loyalties of individuals, officers,
bureaus, and masses, and the ef-
fecting of the conquest of enemy
nations through “mental healing.”


Randwulf
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Well I guess that is why most of the people asking to see proof of that want to see the original BC from a Hawaiian hospital. As far as how many citizen parents or status of citizenship of the parents goes, it is a matter of interpretation and will likely be settled only in some federal court at some point. But with no proof of Hawaiian birth, it becomes a moot point. But it needs to be pointed out that Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen.


prsmith
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

“What conferred his natural born citizenship was the geographic fact that his birth took place on U.S. soil. That's all you need.”

Vattel says you're wrong.
The fact that our founding fathers were concerned enough to insert the natural born citizen clause and found it necessary to grandfather themselves says you're wrong.
I pray to God that you're wrong.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

As the Fourteenth Amendment is currently understood, yes, if Osama bin Laden were born on U.S. soil, he could be eligible for president pursuant to the “natural born Citizen” clause. But he couldn't simply jump off the boat as an adult and just become president. Come on, you claim to know the Constitution – read it! Article II, Section 1 clearly states that a person must also have been resident in the United States for “fourteen Years.”

Your reference to John Jay's letter is historically accurate, but does not resolve our question. There is absolutely no evidence that Jay meant that both parents were required to be citizens for someone to be eligible to be president. If you can find some evidence to back up your claim, be my guest and present it.

As it turns out, common law concerning “natural born subjects” was a settled matter at the time the Constitution was adopted, and it remained the law of the law right up through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. As it turns out, a New York Chancery court in 1844, when faced with the very assertion that you are making – that the Founding Fathers changed the existing common law rule through a private letter and an total lack of debate in the Constitutional Convention – made its opinion resoundingly clear:

“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which the existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

“Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object.”

Lynch v. Clarke, (N.Y. Chancery 1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

So, thanks for playing, but history proves you utterly wrong.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

If any court accepts a case revolving around this issue, it really opens up Pandora's box (or in this case, a Hawaiian vault) for Obama because the plaintiff will immediately file a request for production of any and all original records held by the State of Hawaii and Hawaii will be obliged to produce them. This would include the register of births which is just a list of names and NUMBERS of children who were issued Certificates of Live Birth and they are listed in the order in which the births took place. So BHO's name and number SHOULD appear in a chronological sequence with all the other children who were born on or about August 4, 1961 and roughly correspond with their respective birth dates. It, like the original certifiCATES will also list other important pieces of information such as hospital names, doctor's names, ages, occupations, and birth places of parents, etc.

The computer generated COLB (certificaTION) that Obama has shown images of online would have to produced “in the paper”. A computer scan will not work in court. In addition, the original would be needed so as to establish that the computer produced certificaTION was indeed accurately reflecting what little data it contains.

No, if it gets into court, it will be thoroughly examined if the plaintiff's attorney is anywhere near diligent and the judge anywhere near unbiased. But, if BHO is legitimate, what's he got to fear? I say, “Make it so No. 1!”


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

The flaw in your argument is that English translations of Vattel through 1787 did not include the term “natural born citizen.” Rather, they used the term indegenes, which translates in French to “natives.” The first copy of Law of Nations which used the term “natural born citizen” appeared in 1797, a decade after the Constitutional Convention. So it is more appropriate to say the Founding Fathers had an influence on the translators of Vattel than to claim the Vattel had an influence on the Founding Fathers.

And in any event, such a radical transformation of the common law concept of “natural born subject”/”natural born citizen” obviously would have been treated with more solemnity if it had occurred. Instead, American courts for decades afterwards used the term “natural born citizen” exactly as they has prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

So your theory stands unsupported by the facts.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

So BHO's name and number SHOULD appear in a chronological sequence with all the other children who were born on or about August 4, 1961 and roughly correspond with their respective birth dates.

Perhaps, but let's not overstate that. This was in the days before computers, so hospitals would obtain pre-numbered forms from the state. How these forms were stored, and when they were used, likely differed quite a bit from hospital to hospital, so the best we can hope for is a loose correspondence between registration numbers and dates of birth.

The computer generated COLB (certificaTION) that Obama has shown images of online would have to produced “in the paper”. A computer scan will not work in court. In addition, the original would be needed so as to establish that the computer produced certificaTION was indeed accurately reflecting what little data it contains.

With regard to the COLB, what you are stating is an obvious, universal rule of evidence. Just as Obama produced a paper copy to FactCheck.org, I have no doubt that it can also be made available to the court. That seems like a fairly uncontroversial concept.

As for the original birth certificate, I doubt it would become an issue in the court until evidence could first be produced casting doubt on the legitimacy or accuracy of the COLB. I doubt that documents held in confidence by the state are subject to production merely because somebody would like to see them, otherwise people would be sued all the time. Accordingly, the plaintiff's lawyer would have to be a virtual superhero to claim that the COLB isn't worth the paper it is written on. Look at it from the judge's perspective. Any challenge to an officially issued document is obviously going to be viewed extremely skeptically.


JohnC
Comment posted August 13, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

Your theory completely depends on the fact that there are supposedly three mutually-exclusive categories of U.S. citizenship:

(1) Natural born citizens.
(2) Naturalized citizens.
(3) Citizens who are neither natural born nor naturalized. (Obama's alleged category.)

I challenge you to point to one single opinion from any period in American history, from the local courts on up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has asserted that U.S. citizenship is divided into these three categories.

However, there is a virtual avalanche of cases and statutes which explicitly or implicitly divide citizens/subjects into exactly TWO categories, naturalized and natural born.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 2:13 am

JohnC, What if all three classifications are simply moot and the Senator is, to this day, an illegal alien never becoming any kind of American? Play devils advocate and post what we should do under those circumstances. These are interesting times don't you think? You have been an interesting adversary.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 4:35 am

And England, he was born a British Citizen due to the British Nationality Act of 1948 and his daddy's British Citizenship, being Kenya was a British Colony back in 1961.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:45 am

What if all three classifications are simply moot and the Senator is, to this day, an illegal alien never becoming any kind of American?

Well, since we're dabbling in hypotheticals unconnected with any legal or factual reality, what the heck?

If Obama is an illegal alien, then I suppose we can have ICE raid the White House and put him in a detention center.

Or what if Obama is a space alien? Then we would need to get a special quarantine squad to the White House and make sure he doesn't spread any foreign contaminants to the populace.

These are interesting times don't you think?

True, but not that interesting.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:08 am

You're not making sense. First you suggest that Obama's problem is that he is a dual citizen. Then you state that Obama can “end the discussion” by releasing his records. Of course, if Obama is somehow disqualified from the presidency by virtue of any issue of dual citizenship, his other records would be of no value. As it turns out, however, Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen by sole virtue of his birth on U.S. soil on August 4, 1961, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.

You also suggest that Obama currently has citizenship in Kenya or Indonesia. Neither is true. First, the Kenyan citizenship claim. Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth in 1961 by virtue of his father's citizenship of the United Kingdom and its colonies. This changed to Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963 by virtue of the constitution of the new Republic of Kenya. However, because Kenya does not recognize dual citizenship, a person cannot continue as a Kenyan citizen past his 21st birthday without renouncing his citizenship of all other countries. There is no evidence Obama did this, so his Kenyan citizenship lapsed after August 4, 1982.

Second, the Indonesian citizenship claim. Like Kenya, Indonesia also does not recognize dual citizenship (although this supposedly changed in the last couple years). I am not familiar with the specific Indonesian provisions, but they are likely similar to Kenya's in that Obama could not continue as an Indonesian citizen as an adult without renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Of course, this discussion presumes that Obama became an Indonesian citizen – and there is to my knowledge no evidence that he became an Indonesian citizen at any time.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

Well John, I truly believe that IF it ever got to court and IF any requests of production of these documents was approved by the judge and ordered, the attorney for the plaintiff would make the case that the bulk of the information being sought would be those pieces of data not contained on the computer COLB but rather on the original long form. The reason being that these would contain the name of the hospital or midwife clinic and the name of the attending physician or midwife and the addresses and occupations of the parents etc. etc. The reason he would want this information is so that he could further request productions of hospital, doctor and/or midwife records. Or, the original would just state that he was born at home with no witnesses other than mom, dad, grandma, all of whom are allegedly dead. Or the document will simply show a foreign birth place and the State of Hawaii issued the appropriate certificate to reflect that. I think there well may be one of those in the file there in Hawaii and that seems to be the crux of the whole controversy.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

It's interesting that nobody has tried to file a suit to disqualify him based solely on the dual citizenship at birth issue just to get some kind of ruling on it (if it could even be heard by any court in the land). I am not familiar with the grounds of the many cases that have been filed in various courts on the Obama birth issue and there may have already been one or two that stated the dual citizenship issue as the main complaint but still, I wonder what a court would do with it. That is part of the problem with this whole “natural-born” question. Nothing like this has ever come up before. (Maybe Chester Arthur?)


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

When Obama applied for whatever passport he had, he did not need to be “natural born” qualified any more than Arnold the “Gubenator”. If you will recall the passport office security breech in March of 2008 you will remember that Obama's file was accessed not once but three of four times. It was an inside hacking job carried out by government contract employees. The man in charge of passport office file security at the time, a former CIA spook named John O Brennan, is now Assistant to the President in the area of terrorism and counter terrorism. I believe that is technically a form of sub-cabinet post now. So, I have to wonder exactly what was being done there in those files and what Brennan may have seen and kept to himself (for considerations). If there was any kind of birth or naturalization information in those files, stating that Obama was born somewhere else or ever a citizen of another country, it was scrubbed and other information added. I'll bet Brennan made a back-up copy of the original stuff first though. You know, just as a life insurance policy of sorts.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

Even if the matter got into court, the plaintiff cannot prevail by simply saying he wants to look at confidential documents to dispell vague suspicions that the COLB is not reliable.

Because the COLB states on its face that it is “prima facie evidence” of Obama's birth, the defendant has absolutely no burden to prove that it is reliable. Rather, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the document is unreliable. And a court will never permit the plaintiff to engage in a “fishing expedition” to find evidence of wrongdoing if he does not already have any. So, if the plaintiff doesn't currently possess any strong evidence that the COLB is somehow unreliable, the court won't help him find any.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

Philip Berg already filed a suit last year (See the complaint here: http://obamacrimes.com/082108ObamaComplaint.pdf.). Among his allegations:

“Since the beginning of the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for Office of the President, you must be a “natural born citizen” and you may not hold dual citizenship or multiple citizenships with foreign Countries. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

The court threw out the complaint on the grounds that Berg lacked standing. (See the order here: http://www.flds.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/o….)

As I have previously said, the standing issue will likely hinder any effort to bring this matter into the court system.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

As you'll note, I was referencing the belief among many that Obama became president without even being a U.S. citizen, and thus wasn't “vetted.” You'd think someone would have noticed this “problem” back when he became a U.S. Senator at the very least.

Obviously a person need not be a natural born citizen to obtain a passport – indeed no U.S. statute since 1795 (including immigration and naturalization laws) has even referenced natural born citizens.

As for the allegations that Obama's file was somehow altered, if a person had taken such a step with the intent of erasing evidence that Obama was a citizen of another country, he obviously could have saved himself the trouble by simply looking up Obama's 1961 Hawaiian birth announcements, which have been publicly available on microfilm for decades.

As for whether Obama was a citizen of another country, we don't even need to access Obama's “files” to resolve that debate. Neither Kenya or Indonesia recognize dual citizenship. Since Obama never renounced or otherwise lost his U.S. citizenship, and never lived in Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship expired as a matter of Kenyan law on August 4, 1982.

Obama likely never had Indonesian citizenship in the first place, but regardless of what transpired while he lived there as a child, under U.S. law Obama couldn't have lost his U.S. citizenship unless he failed to re-establish a permanent residence in the U.S. prior to his 25th birthday. No one doubts that Obama was back in the U.S. permanently during his teens at the very latest, so Obama's U.S. citizenship remained fully intact as a matter of law. Thus, when Obama reached adulthood as a citizen of the U.S. and a permanent-basis resident of the same, his citizenship with Indonesia, if it had ever existed in the first place, also would have lapsed.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

Yes that “standing” issue seems to be the catch-all escape clause for all of these judges. Apparently nobody in the entire country (not even another POTUS candidate like Alan Keyes) has the “standing” to file any lawsuit against Obama to force him to produce any proof of anything. At least so far.

I'm afraid it would take a judge who is just about to retire and who has the nads to take on such a case and then be able to withstand the kind of pressure and abuse he would likely face for doing it. The attack on any such judge would be unmerciful, massive and relentless. I don't think it's any secret that this would happen (just ask Lou Dobbs). After all, Obama was elected by media and thus far, concerning any eligibility questions, has been “tried by media” and has had a “judgment rendered by media”. Any critics are immediately attacked by the media. The emperor has no clothes and apparently nobody is allowed to notice or care.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

Two issues need to be resolved: The first one is that nobody in a position of civil authority has ever seen or handled the COLB Obama claims it his proof of Hawaiian birth but the scans reveal anomalies that make it suspect as a fraudulent document.

Secondly, even if it is somehow examined by experts appointed by a court, and found to be something that actually could have been printed out at Hawaii's vital statistics office, it is still only a supporting document for an original document or a CertificaTION of Live Birth which “certifies” the existence of an original in the Hawaiian vaults. A plaintiff is well within his rights to have that original document produced and examined (again by the court appointed experts) to determine if it is genuine (or if it even exists). Not a “fishing expedition” but a directly named and targeted request for a specific government document containing very specific and pertinent information. It actually comes down to two specific information fields on a single document. Nothing vague or mysterious about it. I don't think any judge with the guts to hear a case like this would disagree with that. I think if he agrees to hear the case, he will have already made the decision to order that document produced. But, who knows at this point?


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

Everything about Obama's past is still a matter of conjecture. I mean, who knows? We don't know anything about his origins or schooling or past affiliations with Indonesian government or whether or not he ever accepted any other citizenship or rejected any or was naturalized to US citizenship or ….. well, it just goes on and on. Who could ever know? He has produced nothing but a computer generated, scanned, Jpeg photo image on line, of a COLB-like document. Only FackChecks people have handled it and Hawaiian officials issued a statement that failed to confirm where in Hawaii exactly he was supposed to have been born. No hospital has erected a plaque at his birth place nor confirmed that he was born there. Nobody in Hawaii has come forward with testimony saying he/she was there to witness his birth. Highly unusual. Especially in light of this whole controversy.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

JohnC, Space Aliens are another kind of Aliens, and I do not think they would be illegal, seeing they have no known area on earth that they can call home.
No, I was pondering what would be the procedure and who would oversee the eviction of a non American President from our White House. Say, as you mentioned, ICE raided the White House to incarcerate his illegal alien British behind, would the Secrete Service try to protect him from them? Who has the power to order the Secrete Service to stand down and let the man, they have been ordered to give their life for, be arrested and physically removed from the White House. I can see a large number of innocents being hurt of killed if there were a gun battle over Obama at the White House. If he were out in the Beast, I don't think ICE could touch him. That things a tank! Who takes charge when it is discovered a President is a usurper? Truly political theater of the nth degree! What a show it will be!


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

This is still America, we got to have at least one “Real American” Supreme Court Justice out of nine on our Supreme Court!


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

Actually, the issue of standing has long been a problem when a taxpayer seeks to sue a public official. A judge which finds standing in such a case would be going against a long background of precedent, and thus would represent activism in order to obtain a political end.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:32 pm

Randwulf wrote:

Two issues need to be resolved: The first one is that nobody in a position of civil authority has ever seen or handled the COLB Obama claims it his proof of Hawaiian birth but the scans reveal anomalies that make it suspect as a fraudulent document.

Secondly, even if it is somehow examined by experts appointed by a court, and found to be something that actually could have been printed out at Hawaii's vital statistics office, it is still only a supporting document for an original document or a CertificaTION of Live Birth which “certifies” the existence of an original in the Hawaiian vaults. A plaintiff is well within his rights to have that original document produced and examined (again by the court appointed experts) to determine if it is genuine (or if it even exists). Not a “fishing expedition” but a directly named and targeted request for a specific government document containing very specific and pertinent information. It actually comes down to two specific information fields on a single document. Nothing vague or mysterious about it. I don't think any judge with the guts to hear a case like this would disagree with that. I think if he agrees to hear the case, he will have already made the decision to order that document produced. But, who knows at this point?


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

There are more Indonesian records, that have been released, showing he went to school as Barry Soetoro in a school system that did not cater to non Citizen students, than has ever been seen from any school or other source in America. So the preponderance of evidence shows he was at one time an Indonesian Citizen with no challenge to this fact from other sustainable evidence.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

The Case would never go to Trial! It would be over in discovery. Bet a Case of Ice Cold Bud on that!


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

I'm afraid we're screwed. I really can't even imagine that even ONE of the Supreme Cowards would touch this issue at all. I think it would take a vote of either four or five of them to even get it on the docket and this only after one of them agrees to present it to the whole court for that consideration. If the senate and congress are any indication of the level of intestinal fortitude in federal government today……..well as I said, we're back-stabbed and abandoned. It isn't “politically correct” to recognize this as an issue and therefore, the vast majority of elected and appointed federal officials are total cowards and won't touch it. If Obama was White, they would have looked into all of these questions very closely. No risk there. I noticed that they had no qualms whatsoever launching an investigation into John McCain's “natural born” status. I also noticed that he quickly gave them a copy of his long form, original birth certificate in short order, along with a lot of other personal information. If he hadn't you can bet that the lib left-wing and their “Mainscream Media” (Pravda), would have been screaming, screeching, kvetching, demanding, threatening, tearing hair, crying and rending garments until it was produced. THEY would have been the “birthers”. Especially if McCain had won!


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

The first one is that nobody in a position of civil authority has ever seen or handled the COLB Obama claims it his proof of Hawaiian birth but the scans reveal anomalies that make it suspect as a fraudulent document.

I've seen the pictures of the document handled by FactCheck.org, and I am satisfied that, from my non-expert standpoint, it appears to be a legitimate document. There may be scans out there that have been handled or played with by various parties, but the FactCheck photos are high resolution and show no sign of forgery or anomalies.

Obviously the COLB, if legitimate, must have been seen and handled by a person in a position of civil authority, or it couldn't have been issued by the state. But the fact that it has not been – to our knowledge – personally inspected by a person of public stature is not troubling, as most documents ever produced by the state are not personally vouched for by an official. That doesn't make such a document any less official. The fact that some people reject a state-issued document because they're not inclined to believe it for political reasons is not what I would consider a valid reason for a public official to get involved.

Secondly, even if it is somehow examined by experts appointed by a court, and found to be something that actually could have been printed out at Hawaii's vital statistics office, it is still only a supporting document for an original document or a CertificaTION of Live Birth which “certifies” the existence of an original in the Hawaiian vaults. A plaintiff is well within his rights to have that original document produced and examined (again by the court appointed experts) to determine if it is genuine (or if it even exists). Not a “fishing expedition” but a directly named and targeted request for a specific government document containing very specific and pertinent information. It actually comes down to two specific information fields on a single document. Nothing vague or mysterious about it. I don't think any judge with the guts to hear a case like this would disagree with that. I think if he agrees to hear the case, he will have already made the decision to order that document produced. But, who knows at this point?

You're misunderstanding something. Regardless of what the Certification of Live Birth is called, it IS the official Hawaiian birth certificate for purposes of court evidence. There may be another document from which it obtains its information, but that document is not what Hawaii considers its official document. The court isn't going to waste its time undercutting the validity of a state-issued document without good reason.

Here's a parallel. Suppose you sue another person, claiming that the defendant cannot be permitted to drive because he is not licensed by the state. The defendant produces his driver's license, an official document issued by the state. The plaintiff concedes that he has no specific allegation with regard to the validity of the driver's license itself, but cites his own suspicions and insecurities as reason enough to challenge the license. He then argues that, although the driver's license is prima facie evidence that the person met the requirements to obtain a state-issued license, it doesn't directly and factually prove that the defendant actually passed his driver's test and specifically met all of the requirements necessary for obtaining a license. How do you think the court would rule?


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

That is why the electoral college votes should not have been accepted until all of this issue was properly researched and settled. I don't believe a single objection was raised in the Congress or the Senate.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

The problem here is that you seem to think that the absence of evidence is evidence of an absence. Look, whatever Obama did way in the past may be of interest to some people, but it has no relevance to the policies advocated by his administration or his legitimate election as President of the United States of America.

Birthers tend to dismiss the FactCheck.org evidence, but to do so requires that (1) belief they are part of a conspiracy, and (2) they are willing to stake their reputation on an easily-provable fraud. Perhaps you are willing to take that leap. I am not.

And there's a good reason why Hawaiian officials have not confirmed Obama's place of birth. Under Hawaiian privacy laws, they are not permitted to give out personal information, even in the guise of confirming or rebutting rumors. The reason they are cryptic is because they are doing their best to debunk the most radical rumors without stepping outside of their legal authority. That's why you hear statements that Obama's long-form is maintained by Hawaii in full compliance with state laws and regulations. A reasonable person hears that and says, “They can't tell me what it says, but there is nothing about it that it contrary to the law.” Then that person looks at the applicable laws and regulations, and realizes that there is no way that a foreign born person could possess a COLB with the information on it as on Obama's COLB. With that, the inquiry process is complete.

An unreasonable person says, “AHA!! Regardless of the laws and the mandates of the official's position (who cares, right?), the official isn't telling me everything I want to know about this person because she's hiding something and knowlingly participating in a massive fraud.”


Randwulf
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

This is actually in answer to John but I just want to say that I agree with Oldmagicman. It would be over in discovery and so would the Obama eligibility case. The COLB he “produced” shows obvious signs of having been photoshopped and the term African for race of father is very suspicious. In the 1960s it would have been Negro. In addition, as I said before. Nobody outside of Obama friendly circles has actually seen or held the thing. And most importantly, it doesn't contain all of the same information as the original certificate. The missing information would be the deciding factor. The original IS the real document. The COLB form might be alright to get a kid into 1st grade or little league but is not sufficient to prove eligibility requirements for the highest elected position in the United States of America. Can't anyone see that and accept it as the truth? And if it exists, why hasn't it been trotted out for all to see? You have to wonder about that if you are a reasonable person.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

Regardless of the reasonableness of the scenario, assuming that such a scenario somehow occured, it would fall into the same realm as the current attempts to prosecute law officials who tortured prisoners on the basis of legal opinions issued by the White House arguing that such acts were lawful.

When two government agencies have mandates to take directly opposing law enforcement positions, it isn't really clear what should happen. But I can imagine that, given the long-standing sensitivity to protecting the President of the United States, and the cultural deference to efforts to maintain that protection, any attempt by any person, group, agency or entity to take physical action against the President would (1) be violently opposed by the Secret Service, and (2) be utterly unsupported by any court in the land. Remember that it took years just to permit a regular civil suit by Paula Jones to interfere with President Clinton's official duties.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

Ironically, those records also show that Barry Soetero was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

And even if Obama somehow became an Indonesian citizen, it had zero effect on Obama's citizenship. The laws in effect at the time provided as follows:

[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…

Therefore, unless Obama obtained Indonesian citizenship through his own application (and no one has so provided the slightest bit of evidence for this), he could not lose his U.S. citizenship as long as he “enter[ed] the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday.” There has been zero evidence offered suggesting that Obama did not return to the United States on a permanent basis prior to 1986.

So even if Obama had been an Indonesian citizen at some point in his life, it is totally irrelvant with regard to the continuing fact of Obama's natural born citizenship. Fascinating discussion, but completely irrelevant to Obama's eligibilty to serve as President of the United States of America.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

JohnC, What person or organization was supposedly responsible for Vetting the Senator in the first place? I can find “no one” that admits to fulfilling their responsibility admirably, or making the biggest mistake in the history of America. Could it have been Howard Dean? He lost altitude and seems to be flying under the radar these days. I have read no posts that state which department has the responsibility of vetting potential candidates. Can't find it in any Government texts.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

I noticed that they had no qualms whatsoever launching an investigation into John McCain's “natural born” status.

That is because, unlike Obama, John McCain was not born in the United States. Now most people, including myself, are of the position that any person born a citizen of the United States is a natural birn citizen. On the basis of the origins of “natural born subject,” and the way it was protrayed in Wong Kim Ark, at least some scholars question whether the common law definition extended to persons not born on U.S. soil. (That's why the State Department issued the qualification that it has on that point.) If nothing else, the Surpeme Court has definitively shut the door on those questions.

Furthermore, it is not disputed that, under the laws in existence in 1936, John McCain wasn't even a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. It wasn't until 1937, one year later, that the law was revised to make persons born in circumstances like McCain's citizens at birth. The question is whether the law could retroactively make McCain a citizen from the time of his birth. Even if it did, the next question is whether the statuts of natural born citizen can be retroactively concerned even if the statute provided for it.

The only similar issue with regard to Obama would be if he had been born outside the country. In the case, the law provided that one citizen parent could pass along his or her citizenship as long as he or she had been a U.S. resident for five years after attaining age 14. Now, the idea was to ensure that the person had an adult affinity for the United States, but mathematically it had the perverse result of making it mathematically impossible for any person under age 19 to satisfy this requirement, even if they had lived their entire lives in the United States. This law was revised in 1986 to require the citizen parent reside in the U.S. for TWO years after reaching age 14, but it was not made retroactive. IF Obama were born outside the U.S., Congress could attempt to rectify the problem by making the 1986 law retroactive. But then Obama would be in the same position as McCain: can natural born citizenship statuts be retroactively conferred. There is no precedent on this issue, so it remains a legal gray area.


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

Sorry, that should read “If nothing else, the Surpeme Court has NOT definitively shut the door on those questions.”


JohnC
Comment posted August 14, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

That's because there is no such organization, and never has been one. Vetting has been seen as a political task, not a legal one, as it has been assumed throughout U.S. history that the president's legal qualifications or lack thereof, would be pretty self-evident. Schwarzenegger – born in Austria. Not eligible. Regan – born in Illinois. Eligible. Clinton – born in Arkanasa. Eligible. W. – born in Connecticut. Eligible. Obama – born in Hawaii. Eligible.


Randwulf
Comment posted August 15, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

Here again are images of what Hawaiian “Long Form” Certificates of Live Birth look like.
Here is one side by side with Obama’s “CertiFICATION”. Read the names of each of the documents at the top and centered. One says certificate and the other says certification.

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-content/upl…

A blank one.

http://www.cfourstrategies.com/colb.jpg

Some guy named Alan 1963

http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/20…

One of the Nordyke twins from 1961 (a day after Obama)

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/upl…

An anonymous one from 1978. Yep still using the long form in 1978!

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/HawaiinBirt…

Only doctor signed birth certificate yet to surface for Obama but this could be a forgery.

http://patriotpost.us/images/broadcasts/humor/i…

Oh, yes, and then there is this “Certification” from 2007 which has not been seen or handled outside of any of the Obama friendly sources that have posted different versions using scans and digital photos posted on line. This is all Obama has ever offered as proof that he was born on US soil. Notice there is no mention of a hospital or the name of any attending physician. Hawaii has now admitted that an original long form exists or have lied and said there is one when there isn’t. Since it has never been posted or released by Obama, there is no way to know what it might say. But here is what Obama’s people offer. Again, Obama’s alleged “CertificATION”of Live Birth (probably a forgery)

http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/20…

And just so you can all know. Here is an image of what John McCain produced when asked to prove he was eligible to run for POTUS. A copy of his long form. From a U.S. military hospital in the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone where he was born of two (2) U.S. citizens. You can actually see all that information right there on the LONG FORM.

http://panamajohn.dominates.us/articles/McCain_…

The Senate investigated McCain. Why not Obama?


chenlifeng0810
Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

Only One word to characterize such a great post “WOW” that was a very interesting read
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Everything dynamic and very positively!
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so far
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.