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

By: chenlifeng0810

chenlifeng0810 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:20:06 +0000

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

By: Randwulf

Randwulf — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:19:36 +0000

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?

By: JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:48:44 +0000

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.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:42:21 +0000

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

By: JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:41:24 +0000

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.

By: oldmagicman666

oldmagicman666 — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:36:55 +0000

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.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:30:12 +0000

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.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:20:34 +0000

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.

By: Randwulf

Randwulf — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:10:06 +0000

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.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:09:46 +0000

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."