Birthers aren’t conservative, they’re just nutty

For those who are unable to comprehend what a bookman column on “Birthers” has to do with 9:31, imagine Jay getting out his gallon of Birther Latex and his political brush and painting a whole group of good people to suit his ideological colors.

Back into your corners, y’all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now, obviously, the AJC thinks the following is some heroic measure and that those who see it as reckless abandonment of fiscal responsibility are racists and/or birthers-

With the Sept. 30 end of the government’s fiscal year looming, the chamber voted 217-190 to keep most agencies at current budget levels through Oct. 31.

The bill includes provisions allowing the Postal Service to fill a budget hole by deferring $4 billion in payments due at the end of this month to an employee benefits trust fund. The agency requested the change to help it contend with the recession and declining use of the mail.-Urinal

I don’t use typewriters anymore but I do buy a new one every year just in case, hahahaha.

• Link
• Report this comment

Andy,

I find no need to start worrying about anything just yet since you still make no sense whatsoever to me. However, you can be certain that I will be forever vigilant.

By the way, there is one aspect regarding the poll that uncovered the more charitable nature of conservatives relative to liberals. Did those results factor in tax deductions. Oh wait, never mind. I think we already have that answer in the form of all the whining from the ‘conservatives’ when Obama mentioned reducing some of those tax deductions.

Regarding your movements at the ‘Urinal’, you might want to compare notes with Dave R. He also likes to discuss constitutionals.

Now, you have a nice, giving day, ya hear and try not to worry too much about what sort of tax write off your generosity might bring your way. Anyway, cheer up and let’s talk conspiracies. 8>0

• Link
• Report this comment

From the video:

“Send a fax–for only THIRTY DOLLARS!”

I have to admit, it is tempting to ride some of this Birther gravy train. Presumably it’s pretty easy to part these fools from their money.

• Link
• Report this comment

And when you hear this or that online conservative claim that their lot are more likely to contribute to “charity” than those mean-spirited libruls, remember: in the eyes of the IRS, the “Bill Keller Ministries” are one such “charity.”

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way, there is one aspect regarding the poll that uncovered the more charitable nature of conservatives relative to liberals. Did those results factor in tax deductions. Oh wait, never mind. I think we already have that answer in the form of all the whining from the ‘conservatives’ when Obama mentioned reducing some of those tax deductions.

Anybody else notice that the liberals have all of the tax deductions memorized even though taxes are “patriotic?”

And let’s check this out, now that the subject has been broached- Let’s say that your annual charitable givings are around $20,000 or so, which means you are not a leading democrat politician and that you probably file your taxes. For this patriotic duty, you can expect the IRS to return to you a sum of about $400 for your efforts.

That leaves what, $19,600?

Am I missing something here?

• Link
• Report this comment

Most liberals I know donate something more valuable (and irreplaceable) than money….their time. We have only so much time, and then it’s gone. Conservatives would rather donate money, and spend their time on the golf course, or playing ALTA.

The IRS doesn’t give a tax deduction for the time you donate to Habitat for Humanity, soup kitchens, etc. Even in the Middle Age, wealthy people would pay poor people to perform their penance. They would purchase “indulgences” from the Catholic Church. The rich funded the building of churches, the poor actually built them!

• Link
• Report this comment

The bill includes provisions allowing the Postal Service to fill a budget hole by deferring $4 billion in payments due at the end of this month to an employee benefits trust fund.

I just loves me some talk about pension plans. I gets me an update (with a one year time lag) on my pension plan every year. So far so good. The last thing that I would want right now though is for the PBGC to take it over. I’m too young. The PBGC’s maximum monthly guarantee would leave me short-changed for several more years.

• Link
• Report this comment

AS CHAIRMAM OF THE AMERICAN AFTER-BIRTHERS MOVEMENT:

WE DEMAND THAT CONGRESS SUPEONA “PRESIDENT” BARRACK HOOSAIN OBAMA AND DEMAND THAT HE PRODUCE HIS PLACENTA.

• Link
• Report this comment

Take this true/false test.

Cholesterol is a poison and I should try to reduce it at all costs.

If I lower my cholesterol, I will live longer.

Having “high” cholesterol means I will die younger.

My Doctor does not have any monetary incentive to prescribe statin drugs to me.

Eating foods that contain cholesterol will raise my cholesterol level.

Eating foods that contain animal fat will raise my cholesterol level.

“High” cholesterol is associated with above-average intelligence.

Each person’s cholesterol level is unique to that individual.

The scientific foundation on which the “lipid hypothesis” and the prescribing of statins is irrefutable and rock solid.

Margarine is better for me than is butter.

Atherosclerosis is a calcification of the artery wall and is the body’s response to injury to the artery wall caused by chemical insult from trans fats contained in hydrogenated oils.

Animal fats should be avoided at all cost.

There will likely not be an epidemic of congestive heart failure when the people taking statins reach old age.

I know all about the Framingham Study. I know what the lipid hypothesis is.

The so-called “Food Pyramid” with its emphasis on grains and grain products has nothing whatsoever to do with the epidemic of diabetes in this country.

High fructose corn syrup is a natural substance and is no different than sugar and has nothing to do whatsoever with the epidemic of obesity in this country.

Statin drugs are completely safe or my Doctor would not prescribe them to me.

Having “high” cholesterol means that I am much more likely to develop heart disease.

Hydrogenated vegetable oils are better for me than animal grease or butter.

Here http://www.health-heart.org and here http://www.westonaprice.org are couple of good places to look for the answers.

• Link
• Report this comment

The rich funded the building of churches, the poor actually built them!

But, think of all the jobs they created.

• Link
• Report this comment

Soothsayer,

You better not be trying to bad mouth Crisco. Just lettin’ you know. That’s the sort of talk that set off many of feud.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer –

“I wonder if Jay really was tryin’ to get folks to lighten up along the lines of a non-partisan birther bashin.”

If this is the way he wants to couch it, I am ready to join in. The birthers are nuts just like the truthers are.

• Link
• Report this comment

That’s because us so-called ‘liberals’ actually try to pay our correct amount of taxes.

Hardee, har, har, it was just a random coincidence! that every Obozo democrat cabinet or other governmental nominee forgot to file taxes the last decade or so of their lives, wasn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines

• Link
• Report this comment

mike, to your points and questions raised @ 10.29 & 10.35 — I know a fair amount about church activities, given that I not only belong to a church but I had a close family member (who had been a church administrator and who had a good eye for any red flags) review its budget before I joined, to ensure there wasn’t anything fishy going on.

Nowhere in my posts here, or elsewhere, have I asserted that it is wrong for the the federal government to provide a tax break for such contributions. Indeed, many such religious institutions provide invaluable services (disaster relief being among the most obvious).

However, I think it is fair to ask those who are quick to hype the polling you’ve cited, just how charitable that giving really is. And I write this as someone whose own contributions are also, of course, tax deductible. My place of worship does its share of good work for the local and greater community, but a big honkin’ chunk of the dollars, of course, go to ordinary operations and the modest salaries paid to the staffers. And the church is a resource for my family and myself.

Just trying to see this clearly, and not sugar coating it, is all.

• Link
• Report this comment

every Obozo democrat cabinet or other governmental nominee forgot to file taxes

And by “every”, of course, Whiner means some teensy percentage of the massive hiring done at the start of any new Administration, a percentage probably akin to what one would find of any halfway decent vetting process of a random group of Americans.

That we had not heard of similar tales in previous Administrations might just be good luck, or (as I tend to suspect) the vetting wasn’t all that rigorous.

then again, sure. Maybe the current administration is EXTREE EVIL.

• Link
• Report this comment

The birthers are nuts just like the truthers are.

Indeed, that’s why the birthers are called, well, “birthers.” (as opposed to “The Certifiable” or suchlike.)

There were people on the left who wanted very much to draw a parallel between these nutters on the right, and the nuttiest conspiracy theorists on the left. I like to think I was among the first to promote this usage, at the time I used it for the first time I might’ve even thought I came up with it on my own, but I think mostly it was a matter of bunch of great minds (ok, stupid drones on the InterWebs) thinking alike.

• Link
• Report this comment

To quote the title of a children’s book: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

We all know there are a LOT of nuts around. We’ve got a lot of folks with a chip on their shoulders. The chip is from those nuts.

• Link
• Report this comment

The text stays in this box when refreshed.

The text that refreshes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here:

At least they are working on the problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That we had not heard of similar tales in previous Administrations might just be good luck, or (as I tend to suspect) the vetting wasn’t all that rigorous”

Or it just flat wasn’t reported.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah jist wonders why them birther commercials were bought in markets in the South? Could it be the South has the biggest epicenter of poorly educated white hicks? They seem to have flocked here.

Another day and another Repub Congressman federally indicted. Congrats Cong. Doolittle from California. You make us proud. You’re taking back America one federal cell block at a time. Enjoy your cube.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know, I believe the BlackWaters are right up there with the Halliburtoners, with Obozo being chief nutjob for each both of these little kults, except that now BlackWater rides shotgun for Obozo, to keep his little ass safe.

That’s gotta be worth bonus points, don’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here–

sfb,

I love the way moonbats pretend history doesn’t exist. It’s one of your cuter qualities.

I’m going to put in a few miles before the next round of breathless weather people tell me to build an ark.

Later!

• Link
• Report this comment

I love the way moonbats pretend history doesn’t exist. It’s one of your cuter qualities.

Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what prompted this?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I only ask because I was wondering how many Americans could even correctly answer the question, “Which former Vice President was once CEO of Halliburton?”, let alone construct conspiracy theories about that connection playing a role in decisions made by the Bush Administration.”

So what “conspiracy theories” do you have to explain Clinton’s use of Halliburton during the Kosovo conflict? The fact is that there are but a small handful of companies that are ready, willing, and able to enter war-torn areas and undertake massive reconstruction.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Anybody else notice that if you become a terrorist the libs will blame it on Bush”

Nope…are you sure it’s not just your voices talking to you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Here is some additional perspective on Halliburton:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184989/posts

• Link
• Report this comment

So what “conspiracy theories” do you have to explain Clinton’s use of Halliburton during the Kosovo conflict? The fact is that there are but a small handful of companies that are ready, willing, and able to enter war-torn areas and undertake massive reconstruction.

I’m not sure why it’s presumed that I was here to dredge up such allegations; I was more interested in just how much influence, and how much of a mark was left by what RW referred to as — what was, it, “Halliboners” ? Something like that.

Out for awhile…

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe this is the missing-link

• Link
• Report this comment

Do insurers meddle in your medical care?
Some frustrated physicians complain of ‘hassles’ from insurance companies, but others say they could help doctors practice better medicine.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry, your Alanskies rules for radicals no longer work. Go ahead ridicule. Your worried your Messiah is going to take a fall. Obama himself said his Father wasn’t American. Our Constitution demands both parents be American.

You all made a big deal about McCains birth certificate. why not Obama’s?

• Link
• Report this comment

I question whether or not Barack Obama is a natural citizen….and I’m not nuts, nor am I a “birther”: i.e. the name given to anyone who dares wonder about this, which is supposed to stereotype and demonize us all.

Barack Obama has spent upwards of a million dollars fighting to keep his birth certificate under wraps. And he has refused to make his passport and his school records public. In short, he has dilligently worked to hide everything that might provide any tangible information about where he was born, which country/countries gave him financial aid and which nationality he traveled under.

And you think people who wonder about this are nuts? Tell you what: I think anyone who DOESN’T wonder about it is nuts.

A five minute telephone call to the proper department in Hawaii and a processing fee of probably under $20, gets him a copy of the real birth certificate. He shows it and that largely ends the controversy. Instead he spends something like a million bucks to hide it. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that it is likely there are things on that birth certificate he does not want us to see.

So keep calling people names – that arrogance and dismissiveness apparently is acceptable to you. Me? I’ll stay suspicious.

• Link
• Report this comment

Do you have an actual point, Kamchak? Are you defending ACORN?

Well since this is a thread about reactionary-ism and someone brought up Halliburton, I was comparing the efficacy of a corporate CEO vs. an adviser–and comparing a multinational corporation to a community organizing group.

I brought up ACORN so I could take another shot at “independent film-maker” James O’Keefe.

• Link
• Report this comment

Man, I just get back from spending the morning with my Grandson, feeling pretty happy, and ready to debate with Mike again, and what do I see up. The Birther crapola again. These people are better ignored and maybe they will go away. And that is exactly what I am going to do until the next subject. It’s a rainy day, football is on, and I don’t have time for this.

• Link
• Report this comment

“A five minute telephone call to the proper department in Hawaii and a processing fee of probably under $20, gets him a copy of the real birth certificate”

See the link I posted. You have now outed yourself as a birther…denials of such not withstanding…by simply repeating the lies on which birthers base their denials of his citizenship. Live with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh good, here we go again with the downpours.

• Link
• Report this comment

Barry- The Conservatives were the ones who made a big deal out of McCain’s birth certificate, not the libs.

Hell, the libs were the ones who got him enough votes to win the primaries.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Birther crapola again. These people are better ignored and maybe they will go away.”

Personally, I have to question Jay’s motivation in bringing it up once again. Why don’t we discuss the fact that more than 50% of all health care dollars are spent unnecessarily.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/economy/healthcare_money_wasters/index.htm/

• Link
• Report this comment

This is a classic example of someone who “knows” something he does not know.

Barack Obama did not post his birth certificate. He posted a Certification Of Live Birth” (COLB), which is not the birth certificate, but has some (not all) of a birth certificate’s information on it.

Do yourself a favor and look at your own birth certificate. Do you notice that there is a hospital listed? The doctor who delivered you? The reason you cannot show me that on what Barack Obama provided is because it is not there. And the reason it is not there is because that is not his birth certificate.

The misinformation and ignorance regarding this issue is staggering.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Barack Obama did not post his birth certificate. He posted a Certification Of Live Birth” (COLB), which is not the birth certificate, but has some (not all) of a birth certificate’s information on it. ”

How often does it have to be said: you NEVER get your original birth certificate. You ALWAYS get an official copy….which may or may not be an exact copy of the original – it depends on the state. The states do not send out the originals because they are the official record of your birth in that state, and it a lot of states (maybe even all by now) the original no longer exists. Once they are converted to electronic copies the originals can be destroyed.

The STATE OF HAWAII has certified the certificate posted on that website as the authentic record of his birth IN HAWAII.
“Do yourself a favor and look at your own birth certificate. Do you notice that there is a hospital listed? The doctor who delivered you? ”

No, neither is on MY COPY of my birth certificate. I do have a copy of the HOSPITAL RECORD OF MY BIRTH that does show that information, but the state copy does NOT.

“The reason you cannot show me that on what Barack Obama provided is because it is not there. And the reason it is not there is because that is not his birth certificate.”

The reason it is not there is because Hawaii does not put that information on the OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE they send out when you request a copy of your state record of birth.

“The misinformation and ignorance regarding this issue is staggering”

You should know…you are repeating virutally ALL of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So discuss it. What’s stopping you? Jay has shown no signs of insisting that discussions be kept to the subject of his blog entry.”

I’ve been doing my best to shine the spotlight on this, Doggone, since it is the reason that I think Obama’s proposed mandatory purchase of health care “insurance” is whack. If we could cut out all of the waste and fraud, then there would be plenty of money available to care for everyone without any mandates or government involvement.

I think the reason no one is discussing HOW to reduce the waste and fraud is that it ultimately goes back to each individual taking responsibility for their won health and health care decisions. Not a sexy topic for most people.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’ve been doing my best to shine the spotlight on this”

Then why are you complaining that you can’t discuss it? if you are getting no responses, maybe it’s because everyone agrees with you…or no one WANTS to discuss it…but that doesn’t mean you CAN’T discuss it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Forget the lame video, but boy does he love to play…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsVljVL7RzY

and from that stellar debut record

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Red_Neck_Friend/3589333

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno

The content of the videos pretty much speaks for itself. The “guilty” parties at ACORN of been fired and policy has been set–the back story, however, is not getting any attention. This same “independent film-maker” James O’Keefe punked Planned Parenthood two and a half years ago. He has since found a sugar-daddy willing to finance his Ashton Kucher enterprise, and he had to travel across country in order to find just a couple of employees he could punk.

The irony is that Maryland is a “two-party” State–meaning his undercover videos are an inadmissible investigative tool.

• Link
• Report this comment

They were the second band I ever saw live, Bruno (after Alice).

There would be these sweet little acoustic and flute-laden interludes and then all of a sudden, WHAM! Explosive rock crescendos. A helluva ride.

From that aforementioned LP, but it’s an old day now…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH9YwZ60Mhs

and the one and only Ms. Cooper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQwJaAhtCi8&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

“Then why are you complaining that you can’t discuss it? if you are getting no responses, maybe it’s because everyone agrees with you…or no one WANTS to discuss it…but that doesn’t mean you CAN’T discuss it.”

I never said I CAN’T discuss it. If you reread my original post, I was more questioning Jay’s motivation in beating the birth certificate drum once again when there are far more important issues to discuss. Jay did run a piece a few weeks ago “explaining” why he thought the mandate was a good idea, but I was working and couldn’t participate.

I doubt that many people are quiet because they agree with me, though. Why? Because the solution to our “crisis” is to restore insurance to its rightful place as protection against catastrophic loss (i.e. $10,000 deductible or more). Only when people begin paying out-of-pocket again for routine medical care will the costs ever come down.

• Link
• Report this comment

“No matter how many ways this information is removed and withheld, so no one can check, you can’t find a reason to wonder why. Your lack of curiosity is astonishing”

And your lack of proof is just AWESOME. Hawaii has verified that the certificate posted is authentic and an official record of his birth in that state. Where is your PROOF that they are lying about it?

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet–I saw Tull for the first time out in LA in 1978, awesome show.

Never was a huge Foreigner fan, though their live show is entertaining. I do like the song “Starrider” from their first album.

Gotta envy you for the Alice shows–I missed him while he was in his prime.

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re on cruise control.

I am not trying to PROVE a thing. I am pointing out that all checkable information about Barack Obama’s birth is being withheld, and that causes suspicion on my part.

We are not allowed to have the name of the hospital or the doctor. We can’t see what passport he traveled under. We can’t see his school records. In short, every way of checking is denied us. The fact that none of this troubles you a bit or arouses any suspicion on your part says a lot more about you than me.

Also, I did not say the COLB is inauthentic, I said it is not a birth certificate and does not have the information on a birth certificate that can be used to verify where Mr. Obama was born. Since you’re doing nothing other than pumping out talking points, you didn’t notice as much.

The quality of your responses makes it clear that there isn’t much point in trying to engage you anymore. Enjoy “knowing” what you don’t know.

• Link
• Report this comment

“you’re doing nothing but repeating the lies.”

As well as proving his own breathtaking lack of thinking skills…

• Link
• Report this comment

“We have, I think, tried to face a Republican reality, which is the stereotype that Republicans are disconnected from the lives of average people. It’s unfair. It’s untrue. A Democrat can be a blue-blood billionaire who wouldn’t recognize a working family if his limousine ran over one, but still, they benefit from the presumption that their hearts are in the right place, and we bear the opposite burden,” he says.-WallStreetJournal

Well, so much for Sarah Palin, I’m now a Mitch Daniels man.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I am not trying to PROVE a thing”

In other words: you got NOTHING. How many questions could we dream up about YOUR birth? The bottom line is: the state of Hawaii certifed his birth in that state. Officially certified it. END of discussion.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If there was a legitimate controversy regarding Obama’s place of birth, you KNOW the Hillary camp would have brought it to light during the primaries”

That’s always been my attitude towards the “controversy” also.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, fortunately, when my daughter becomes the first female president of the United States (I’ve been planning this since before her birth and believe me there is a lot of work involved and the details are a real killer) I’ll be there to bear witness that she was really born in the United States because as soon as I become President, I’m going to declare that anyone ever born in the back seat of a car or bus or ambulance on the way to the hospital and anyone delivered at home by a family member or neighbor or anyone else instead of just in a hospital and anyone born out of wedlock here in the United States and anyone born to a white momma with a black daddy or vice versa at any time in any state without fear of gettin’ your sorry inter-racial buttocks hung, etc., is hereby a citizen of these United States and that’s the truth and there will not be any long form needed by the way. So, to all you sorry worthless so-called Americans that can’t think of anything more important in your worthless miserable lives to worry your silly little uneducated brains over than whether or not our President of ten months meets your qualifications for the office of the presidency, I just have one thing left to say to you. Y’all funny. Oh, I almost forgot. Y’all need lots of hugs. hehehe

• Link
• Report this comment

“I was reading a whle back that although Chester A. Arthur gave his birthplace as Fairfield, VT, there were allegations that he was actually born in Canada”

And didn’t this same sort of thing come up when Barry Goldwater was running? Because he was born in 1909 but Arizona was not admitted to the Union until 1912?

• Link
• Report this comment

Birthers…….te hee hee

• Link
• Report this comment

“Tell you what: why not just stick to the practical non-hard-evidence point ”

Yep, I bet you DO get a thrill out of repeating lies. Why not stick the the HARD EVIDENCE FACT that the state of Hawaii CERTIFIED HIS BIRTH IN THAT STATE?

• Link
• Report this comment

Again with the birthers, jay!!?!!

O.K., I’ll play…

and dems aren’t “truthers”, they’re just ACORNS.

There now, wasn’t that fun?

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, are those who planted Obama in the White House clever. They were so smart they even placed 2, not 1 but 2, birth announcements for him in Honolulu newspapers in August 1961, anticipating that, 47 years in the future, this newborn might run for president. See how smart they are?

And, as for the moron who said both parents have to be American citizens, in truth, NEITHER parent needs to be a U.S. citizen for a chi,d born in this country to be a naturally born citizen. If two illegal aliens sneak into Texas and the woman has a child there, that child is an American citizen by birthright and would then be eligible to be president. This comes from something called the 14th Amendment. You may have heard of it? It was in all the newspapers.

As for birthright being all that’s needed for someone to be a natural born citizen, the case in question is U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Supreme Court determined a man born in California to a pair of legal immigrants from China was a natural born citizen of the United States.

You’re all welcome for the civics lesson.

• Link
• Report this comment

And didn’t this same sort of thing come up when Barry Goldwater was running?

May have. I don’t really remember. Would the fact that Arizona was a U.S. Territory at the time rather than a state have affected his natural born citizenship status? That’s not a gotcha question; I’m just curious.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

• Link
• Report this comment

In other words: you got NOTHING.

He’s got you replying to him.

Call his mother a goat-blower and move on. Jeez.

• Link
• Report this comment

And didn’t this same sort of thing come up when Barry Goldwater was running?

May have. I don’t really remember. Would the fact that Arizona was a U.S. Territory at the time rather than a state have affected his natural born citizenship status? That’s not a gotcha question; I’m just curious.”

No. The 14th Amendment states

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

In other words, anyone born where U.S. laws apply, be it a state, territory, commonwealth, military base, etc., is a natural born citizen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Learn a little something about the ultra-conservative Annenbergs, friend of the Reagans and backers of McCain before you embarrass yourself again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

There is an interesting case that will be going to court soon in connection with the birther issue.

A group of wild and crazy birthers are in the process of suing Hawaiian Health officials for access to the records Hawaiian Health officials used to base their two statements relating to Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth document upon. This case isn’t technically an issue regarding Obama’s personal vital records per say, but rather the issue pertaining to whether Obama requested to amend his vital records or if he actually amended them. Those requests, even a request to see his records is itself a government record under the Hawaiian Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) and as such should be accessible to the public as a public record — NOT Obama’s actual vital records themselves.

Hawaiian Health officials have acknowledged these records do exist, but were not available as they were protected. Their official response thus far is that the public isn’t allowed access to those records…

THE ISSUES

Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:

(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

A public request for all information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing that public statement made by Director Fukino has been made by a few crazy birthers and according to Hawaiian Public Records statute, any such information must be released.

The central question revolves around just how Director Fukino arrived at her conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. Section 92F-12(15) clearly states that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. However, when a demand for this information was made to the Hawaiian Health officials, those crazy birthers were denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute.

Furthermore, Hawaii officials – upon denying public access to information requested – were required by statute to inform those crazy birthers of their right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:

(b)… If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]

The Hawaiian Office of Information Practices (OIP) failed to offer public notice that a judicial appeal was available. Instead, the OIP simply told them that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help in this matter any further.

Those crazy birthers, being, well, crazy, are bringing litigation forward according to the following statute provision:

§92F-15 Judicial enforcement.

(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.

(b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.

(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.

Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.

With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.

One more thing: If Obama has attempted to amend his vital records, or even if he has asked for access to amend his vital records, then by your definition, Obama is one of us, a wild and crazy birther.

ex animo
davidfarrar, a wild and crazy birther

• Link
• Report this comment

What is a chairmam?

Anyways, after-birther moment seems to be just another birther.

Let us talk about misinformation and ignorance. There is absolutely no difference between a “birth certificate” and a “certificate of live birth”. They are both the same. Anyone attempting to argue that they are different is just spreading misinformation, and those who believe that they are different are just ignorant.

By being picking on the exact wording is just a deception. Most books written on American history title doesn’t read “America history.”

Distorting the facts and twisting logic doesn’t support one argument.

As eloquently writing in the title of this article birthers are just nutty.

• Link
• Report this comment

GOP lawmakers are calling on the Obama administration to cancel economic aid to foundations run by Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi following his rambling diatribe at the United Nations this week and the hero’s welcome he gave to the Lockerbie bomber last month.

Ros-Lehtien argued that Congress’ goal of providing money to promote democracy and human rights in Libya has been undermined by the administration’s decision to funnel the resources through the Qaddafi family.-FoxNews

What’s another 2.5 million, America, especially going to a mass murderer?

Whatever, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

To Ken Berwitz the Douche Nozzle: Carter was the first President born in an hospital. Suddenly, asses like you require a Doctor’s name and attending witnesses to validate natural born citizenship.

I submit that you’re an idiot and a paranoid douche with more spare time than common sense.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar is spinning more BS. “There is a difference between a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) and a long-form birth certificate (LFBC).”

Legally no. Stop being a lying ass.

• Link
• Report this comment

However, such is not the case with Obama, as far as we know.

Who is we?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Majority Will,

Obama and I.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Majority Will,

Legally, yes; they are different. True, they may be used in some cases to attest to citizenship, but in others, they are not. But as I explained earlier, the COLB is a short form of the LFBC. In this particular case, while both are “legal” documents, only the LFBC can tell us what “evidence” Hawaiian Health officials accepted to establish Obama’s Hawaiian birth place and time. As to the veracity of that “evidence”, unfortunately, largely due to Obama’s intransigence in publishing his LFBC, the jury is still out.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

This:

“Too bad that his sister had told the press that he was born in the other hospital.”

is also false. Obama’s sister has never stated that her brother was born anywhere other than Kapiolani. And the original story this false claim is derived from didn’t even involve the legitimate press. Again, if people actually checked their sources, they’d know this.

I’ll even tell the story of how this myth got started, in case anyone doubts me. Back in November 2004, when Obama won his U.S. Senate race, a high school kid in Hawaii wrote an article for his school paper about Obama. The first paragraph of the article gave a short childhood bio of Obama, including erroneously stating that he was born at Queen’s Medical Center. The article also had several quotes from Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s half-sister.

However, the comment about Queen’s is only in the introductory paragraph, is NOT in a quote from Maya, and there is no indication that the author (a high school junior, not a member of the press) got the information from her. To the contrary, there’s a strong likelihood that he just copied it off a website that had gotten it wrong.

Of course, since the high school kid made this mistake in an article that happened to have other quotes from Obama’s sister, the Birthers eventually started claiming that Maya herself had said it. And other people, namely people who don’t check their sources, started repeating it as gospel.

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

“You may be correct. I think his sister is the one who actually stated that Barack was born at another hospital other than at Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center.”

I am correct. And as I detailed in my 6:54 post, Obama’s sister has never stated that he was born at any hospital other than Kapiolani either.

To the contrary, she has, at least once, actually been quoted on the subject of what hospital he was born in, and in that quote, she stated it was Kapiolani: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/02/18/news/story03.html

No one in the Obama family has forgotten what hospital Obama was born in. He, and everyone else in his family, has always consistently been quoted as saying that it was Kapiolani. Any confusion over the issue did not begin with Obama or his family.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren,

I did manager to find an article by United International Press (UPI), dated November 4, 2008, wherein it states that Barack Obama, himself, says he was born at Queen’s Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

However, on July 9, 2009, that writer of this article writes: “This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen’s Hospital, an error made by the writer.”

The article itself doesn’t name the writer, nor does it say where the writer obtained the corrected information.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

In the case of the UPI article, it’s clear that the writer is paraphrasing a speech of Obama’s, but due to some sloppy reporting, it’s not clear at all what speech is being paraphrased. Only a total of eight words are actually quoted, and six of those come from a speech supposedly given in February 2007.

And yet, Obama’s February 2007 speech doesn’t include the phrase attributed to it. See http://www.barackobama.com/2007/02/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_11.php . He did use the phrase in a couple of February *2008* speeches, which also referenced his birth, but which didn’t name any hospitals. Additionally, the “all-America” quote doesn’t appear in either the February 2007 announcement speech or the November 4, 2008 acceptance speech, so it’s not clear where the author got that from.

In any case, if Obama had actually named Queen’s in a speech, there’d be a transcript of it, and not just a UPI article paraphrasing it.

As for other examples of bad factchecking by the reporter, it refers to The Audacity of Hope as Obama’s “best-selling third book.” Obama has only written two books. Obama’s mother died at age 52, not 53. Malia Obama was 10 when the article was written, not 9. Obama technically won in 2004 with *almost* 70% of the vote, not “more than 70%.” And curiously, the writer seems to treat Obama’s grandmother as being alive, when she had actually passed away.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar:
Are you a Supreme Court Justice?

No.

You are a pathetic, anonymous, unqualified douche.

• Link
• Report this comment

This just in –

Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s all he needs, to be a “natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Any claim that he was born elsewhere or that his father’s British citizenship prevented him from being a “natural born citizen” are fantasies. Under the Constitution, courts are not allowed to rule on the eligibility of the president; only the Congress gets to do that, and it already has.

The entire Birther movement is the World’s Biggest Epic Fail. One week from tomorrow, Judge Carter in California will dismiss Barnett v. Obama. Judge Land in Georgia will sanction Orly at least $10,000 (but she’s working hard to persuade the judge to make it a lot more).

JB Williams, Devvy Kidd, Alexander Gofen, Leo Donofrio, WorldNutDaily and all the other Birthers can keep yappin’ about it all they want. In fact, I hope they do. It’s wonderfully entertaining.

But no, courts aren’t going to remove the president, he’s not going to be impeached, and neither the military or any other Americans aren’t going to rise up in violent revolution. Well over a year since Phil Berg filed the first lawsuit, not one Birther attorney has won so much as a single motion, much less a case. No judge is ever going to allow ‘discovery’ on the issue.

Have a nice day!

• Link
• Report this comment

I have one question. Why would anyone spend over one million dollars to NOT show their birth certificate? He won’t show his long form birth certificate, any of his college records or his medical records. It doesn’t even matter if he does show it, he would still be ineligible. In his own book he said he traveled to Pakistan when he was 20 years old. Pakistan did not allow Americans into their country at that time. He went on an Indonesian passport, meaning he gave up his citizenship at that time. Unless he returned to the USA and repatriated himself in front of a judge before he was 21 years old, he is ineligible.
Ghandi once said regarding the truth: : First they ignore you, then the ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win”. Go to: Obamacrimes.com and read all about it. I dare you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren,

There is one issue that I must admit perplexes me and that is: I can understand why a hospital won’t release their birth records as a matter of privacy. I would want the same consideration. But what would prohibit other hospitals from releasing the fact that they simply have no record of a specific birth taking place on a given date?

If Barack Obama wasn’t born at Queen’s Medical Center, why wouldn’t Queen’s Medical Center’s officials simply say they don’t have any record of such a birth?

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Foggy,

I am not sure where you got your belief that only Congress can declare a sitting president ineligible to hold office.

Certainly you would agree, if Obama broke the law when he asserted himself eligible when, in fact, he knew he was not, and this fact can rightfully be called into question, the court is the proper place to address questions of fact, not Congress.

The constitutional issues to which you refer deal with a legally qualified, setting president that has somehow become unqualified and must be removed from office, in much the same fashion as we now know happened in Honduras, thanks to the recently released Congressional Research Service’s opinion.

In fact, this decision tells us that Obama jumped the gun in supporting a raising dictator out to destroy the Honduran democracy. A fact that Obama has thus far failed to address.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s all he needs, to be a “natural born citizen” and eligible for the presidency. Any claim that he was born elsewhere or that his father’s British citizenship prevented him from being a “natural born citizen” are fantasies. Under the Constitution, courts are not allowed to rule on the ligibility of the president; only the Congress gets to do that, and it already has

• Link
• Report this comment

“Here is another example: Now it seems Obama didn’t actually write his last memoir, “Audacity of Hope”, William Ayers did.”

Libelous garbage. Where’s your proof, dickless?

• Link
• Report this comment

If Barack Obama wasn’t born at Queen’s Medical Center, why wouldn’t Queen’s Medical Center’s officials simply say they don’t have any record of such a birth?

HIPAA
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html

And you are a douche bag.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar, does it ever end?

“I would also like to add, lacking any really evidence to the contrary, there is also the allegation swimming around out there that Barack Obama was, in fact, a CIA agent during his trip to Pakistan.”

“Now it seems Obama didn’t actually write his last memoir, “Audacity of Hope”, William Ayers did.”

And the hits just keep on coming.

And you actually wonder why President Obama won’t put this issue to rest.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I will be only to happy to put this matter to rest and move on to other substantive issues concerning Obama’s birth.”

I doubt that. I think you’re a compulsive ass.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Gayan,

“Obama has been defending himself in 14 different states. One in California against Alan Keyes, former amb. to the UN. Do you rerally think that lawyers @ $500/hour defending against all those lawsuits would not be well OVER one million dollars?”

Of course not. Do the math. One million dollars, even at $500/hour, is 2000 billable hours of work. That’s the equivalent of one attorney’s entire workload for an entire year. In most of these cases, there are only a handful of filings made by the defense attorneys, little more than an Answer and a Motion to Dismiss, which are largely copied from filings in previous suits. Oftentimes there’s not even an oral hearing. Even if we round up the caseload to 20, that’s 100 billable hours PER LAWSUIT, and that’s just insane on its face.

Plus, you’re assuming that the lawyers are charging at all. At least in some cases, they’ve been working pro bono.

In any case, you said he’d spent a million. Do you have a reliable source for that figure or not?

“Order the video from World Net Daily called”A Question Of Eligibility””

I’ve seen it. It’s full of half-truths and wild speculation. At one point, Jerome Corsi flat-out lies and claims to have an affidavit from Obama’s grandmother, signed under oath, stating that she was present for Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya. No such affidavit exists.

“Why do you think Major Brown represented by Orly Taitz had his orders to go to Afghanistan recinded?”

Orly Taitz has not represented a “Major Brown.” She represented a Major Stefan Cook, who was an Army reservist and who VOLUNTEERED to be deployed to Afghanistan. He was free to withdraw that request at any time up until his deployment. The Army just took the fact that he filed a lawsuit as a defacto request to not deploy.

You may also notice that Orly’s latest plaintiff, Connie Rhodes, who had NOT volunteered for deployment like Cook, was forced to deploy despite her suit.

“I heard that a judge has ordered discovery on this issue,”

You heard wrong. No judge, anywhere, has ordered discovery on any of Orly’s cases. Orly has claimed that discovery was allowed, but that’s because Orly is legally incompetent.

• Link
• Report this comment

David –

After all the points I mentioned, you STILL harbor doubt about the President’s birthplace? Man, I couldn’t live my life with such cynicism. Why do you?

Just as Bush didn’t address the Truthers, don’t expect Obama to placate his detractors after he’s already presented a Certificate of Live Birth. And especially since Ms. Fukimo has confirmed the details on the vital records on file with the state of Hawaii.

You read these comments and come to the conclusion it’s hurting him politically? David, you seem to make decisions based on internet forum posts and any soul with fifteen bucks and a modem. I’m sorry, David, but by putting faith in internet bloggers and discounting hard facts and sources like Cheyenne Fukimo, you’re simply being obtuse.

• Link
• Report this comment

“and judging by some of the invective ad hominem attacks presented here”

You deserve to be ridiculed and mocked repeatedly. You are fear mongering human scum.

• Link
• Report this comment

David — The assertion that every sentence in the Bennett Guira newsletter article must be attributed to Barack Obama or Maya Soetero (because they are they are the only ones quoted in the piece!) is patently absurd and a classic example of twisted birther logic.

There is simply no end to the straw grasping with the birther movement, which only amplifies that the credo of “If he would just show the long-form, this would all go away” is equally absurd.

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

To respond to several of BP2’s specific allegations:

“I’m intimately familiar with the AP Style Handbook and guidelines for attribution.”

That’s swell. High school juniors don’t exactly follow the AP Style Handbook for their school newspapers, though.

“Regardless of the existence or absence of quotation marks, the author derived the information from the subject of the interview: Maya (or perhaps even Obama). If you look at the two-pages of this article, there are only TWO sources referenced in this story:”

So Bennett Guira got every fact he included in the article directly from either Maya or Barack? The reference to Jack Ryan’s dropout and Mike Ditka’s possible candidacy, for instance? Barack’s loss to Bobby Rush in 2000? The reference to AIDS funding?

Heck, I’ll save you the speculation: it looks like he got it all from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=7112646 . Ryan, Ditka, Rush, AIDS, Punahou, the erroneous reference to Queens’…it’s all there. All the mundane biographical details, and even some of the phrasing (like Republican leaders questioning Ryan’s integrity) comes straight from Wikipedia.

He’s a Hawaiian high school kid. Getting some quotes from a local teacher is one thing; scoring an interview with a US Senator from Illinois is another. And is it suddenly unreasonable to assume that a high school kid wouldn’t do internet research for a newspaper article?

“IN FACT, if you look at the LAST paragraph of the November 2004 story, Obama is QUOTED directly. A search for the sentence, “I truly believe that there is another tradition in this country that says we’re all connected somehow,” shows NO other references on Google, Bing or AllTheWeb (sans this original article). That indicates to me that the author did NOT lift the quote from another source. Rather, the author interviewed Obama on the phone from Hawaii.”

See, here BP2 has just resorted to lying. And I’m guessing that you didn’t check to see whether he was telling the truth before you decided you agreed with his assessment. Because Obama *did* make this statement in another interview that I found in Google:

http://www.aptww.org/IntlCatalog.nsf/0/9EAE6957ED3D3BFE8525745D006E663F/$FILE/Obama%20interview%20footage%20transcript.doc

It’s from a January 2004 video interview that Obama gave. Every Obama quote in Guira’s article was cribbed from a publicly available Obama interview or speech.

“There is no reasonable explanation as to why after nearly FIVE years, there has been no retraction from the author or Maya.”

Maya has nothing to retract; she didn’t say anything wrong. And the kid, again, was a high school junior. Have you EVER heard of anyone, anywhere, issuing a public retraction for a passing factual error in a high school newspaper article from five years earlier? Is it really that unreasonable to think that people don’t go around issuing public retractions for mistakes they made in high school journalism class?

• Link
• Report this comment

Loren, first of all, please do not call me a liar or a nut, or else be called a cool-aid drinking fool who will blindly follow a corrupt politician off a cliff purely because of shared political affiliation. That, my dear – TRULY IS nuts.

Furthermore, when you fling labels, you might as well insert any other hurtful name YOU may have been called by a bully in third grade – which BTW, is how educated and mean-spirited you come off as when you do it here. I have an entire lexicon of degrading comments you may NOT have heard a conservative call a Liberal on a blog. If we can BOTH play nice, it won’t be necessary to pull it out and smack you around with it (figuratively speaking, of course). I’ll keep the SARCASM to a minimum – hopefully you can figure out where it is, and is not, in my retort below.

The “nuts and sluts” strategy seem to have worked for Carville in the 90s, just like the term “RACIST” feignly seemed to induce an artificial sense of guilt among certain segments of the voting public in 2008. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT that I see your strategy regarding Maya’s Nov 2004 article is to DENOUNCE it because it was done by a doltish high school student – who, oddly enough, got ALL of facts SPOT ON correct – except, of course, the error you’re citing about Obama being born at Queen’s Medical Center.

The proofreader and editor – likely adults – must also be idiots too, working for a high school paper, huh? They properly checked the spelling, grammar, punctuation, style – ONLY to get that birth place wrong. LOL – they even spelled his name right, including the “c” instead of spelling his name “Barak” like we’ve seen many Illinois journalists do in 2004. What are the odds?!

Personally, one thing I’ve found to be consistent is that on the rare occasion when I’ve flubbed facts on a puff piece I’ve written on a politician or government official, especially a “hard fact” like the birthplace of a US Senator, the interviewee tends to lets me know about it pretty darn quick after publication! Yet there’s no record of a retraction, or no anecdotal evidence of Maya correcting this poor high school news writer who just CAN’T seem to get his facts straight.

Loren, unlike yourself, I have a lot of respect for our young people who pursue journalism. For example, just in the last month, I’ve seen a team of 20- and 25-year-old investigative journalists expose the corruption that is ACORN, leading them to likely be de-funded by Congress of $8.5 billion of our taxpayer money. ACORN won’t be working Census enumeration either – tsk, tsk, tsk . Raids in Florida, audits in Louisiana and a criminal trial opening in Nevada this weekend to prosecute ACORN for voter fraud in 2008 – all initiated by a handful of people, a website, and a SINGLE network – Fox News. Yes, I have a lot of respect for our nation’s young aspiring journalists – they can do so much compared to the stereotypical lazy journalists who simply “localize” an AP story that mirrors a similar article appearing in the NYT. There’s a lot to be said for “fact checking.”

Which brings me to my last point – where you called me a liar above – regarding the last sentence of the 2004 article where Obama himself says, “I truly believe that there is another tradition in this country that says we’re all connected somehow.”

For some reason, that January 2004 video interview that you sourced (http://www.aptww.org/IntlCatalog.nsf/0/9EAE6957ED3D3BFE8525745D006E663F/$FILE/Obama%20interview%20footage%20transcript.doc) cannot be found on the internet before Dec. 24, 2008. Try searching for the FIRST part of FIRST sentence – “You know, people get my name wrong all the time”.

I recommend looking at AllTheWeb.com, where you can isolate the exact date range. Your 2004 transcript does not appear on any meta crawler database until Christmas Eve 2008, nearly 5 years after the interview was recorded. I’m sure you have a REASONABLE explanation for this that doesn’t include the REVISIONISM that is rampant in other portions of Mr. Obama’s past.

Furthermore, I know you also have a REASONABLE explanation as to why there are THREE different versions of the same letter that Rep. Abercrombie, Obama’s Hawaiian buddy, read on January 24 where Obama first announced (by proxy) that he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center.

Note that all three letters are signed, but all have different tabbing, line-lengths and spacing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2349118/posts?page=15#15

That’s just nuts, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

So why doesn’t Obama simply publish his long form birth certificate like John McCain did and end this matter once and for all? True, it may not end it for some, but it will for most of us, provided there are corroborating records accessible as well, again, AS JOHN MCCAIN DID. Namely his Occidental College records, his Passport record, his Columbia College records, his Columbia College thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” , his Harvard College records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his Illinois Bar Records, his Baptism certificate, his Medical records (including his vaccination records), his Illinois State Senate records, his Illinois State Senate schedule, his Law practice client list and his University of Chicago scholarly articles.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

“Loren, first of all, please do not call me a liar or a nut, or else be called a cool-aid drinking fool who will blindly follow a corrupt politician off a cliff purely because of shared political affiliation. That, my dear – TRULY IS nuts.”

I didn’t call you a nut. I said you lied. Not in a conversation with you, but in response to someone quoting you from another website. You asserted that you searched and couldn’t find Obama’s statement online. I searched and I found it. What’s your alternative explanation for saying you couldn’t find something that is readily and easily found?

“I see your strategy regarding Maya’s Nov 2004 article is to DENOUNCE it because it was done by a doltish high school student – who, oddly enough, got ALL of facts SPOT ON correct – except, of course, the error you’re citing about Obama being born at Queen’s Medical Center.”

If you look at Obama’s Wikipedia entry circa November 2004, you can see that Guira got right what Wikipedia got right, and got wrong what Wikipedia got wrong. He got obscure stuff like Ditka and the name of the Illinois Republican Chairwoman. He even cribbed the only other Obama quote (“The irony is that my decision…”) straight from the Wikipedia entry.

“The proofreader and editor – likely adults – must also be idiots too, working for a high school paper, huh? They properly checked the spelling, grammar, punctuation, style – ONLY to get that birth place wrong.”

Have you actually read the high school newspaper article? There are MULTIPLE grammatical errors. To cite JUST spelling errors, Guira writes “Illiois”, “Congressinoal”, “Repersentative”, “whoe”, “chilhood”, “competetive” and “accoplishments.” So why do you claim there are none?

“Personally, one thing I’ve found to be consistent is that on the rare occasion when I’ve flubbed facts on a puff piece I’ve written on a politician or government official, especially a “hard fact” like the birthplace of a US Senator, the interviewee tends to lets me know about it pretty darn quick after publication!”

So you’ve done puff pieces on politicians before? Have you ever asked any of them, or better yet their family members, during their interviews what HOSPITAL they were born in?

“For some reason, that January 2004 video interview that you sourced (http://www.aptww.org/IntlCatalog.nsf/0/9EAE6957ED3D3BFE8525745D006E663F/$FILE/Obama%20interview%20footage%20transcript.doc) cannot be found on the internet before Dec. 24, 2008….Your 2004 transcript does not appear on any meta crawler database until Christmas Eve 2008, nearly 5 years after the interview was recorded.”

Then maybe, just maybe, Guira SAW THE VIDEO excerpted somewhere. Here’s a page about the video, that states it was filmed in January 2004:

http://aptww.org/IntlCatalog.nsf/bpt/9EAE6957ED3D3BFE8525745D006E663F?OpenDocument&Flag=Search&Title=obama&ProgramTiming=&MiscSearch&ProgramType=

“I’m sure you have a REASONABLE explanation for this that doesn’t include the REVISIONISM that is rampant in other portions of Mr. Obama’s past.”

So your theory is that Obama gave an interview to a high school kid, who used only one quote from Obama in the final sentence of his article and never bothered to clarify that he actually interviewed the Senator, and that either Obama or his sister told the kid that Obama was born at Queen’s. That the kid put that hospital reference in his article, and that when Obama ran for President they realized the mistake made in 2004, so through the miracle of “revisionism” they concocted a fake January 2004 video interview where Obama used the same quote from the final paragraph, and then put that video and its transcript online to undercut accusations that the kid ever personally interviewed Obama, even though the standard accusation is that the kid got the information from Maya?

That’s your more reasonable explanation than the revisionism-free ‘The kid interviewed Maya, cribbed from Wikipedia, and used a quote from an Obama video’?

• Link
• Report this comment

The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

• Link
• Report this comment

OK, to recap:

It was said that Obama’s “sister had told the press that he was born in the other hospital.” I pointed out that this was false, and Maya has never been quoted as saying her brother was born at Queens.

You proposed that because the article incorporated an interview with Maya, then the factual information about her brother must have also come from Maya. Further, you proposed that the writer must have also interviewed Obama by telephone, as you claimed that the final Obama quote in the article couldn’t be found online, and that thus the high school writer might have gotten the Queen’s reference from Obama, not Maya.

I pointed out that the final quote HAD been made by Obama previous to the high school newspaper article, and that despite your claim to the contrary, it COULD be found online.

You responded by glossing over the fact that you had claimed that it couldn’t be found, and instead shifted your focus to asking how the kid could have seen the written transcript.

I proposed that since the video was filmed eight months before the article was written, the kid might have seen a video excerpt somewhere. Again disputing your claim that the kid didn’t interview Obama personally; he got the quote from somewhere else.

In response to which you wrote…this. Wherein you don’t talk about whether the quote came from or whether the kid interviewed Obama or the actual original topic of whether Maya was the source for “Queen’s”, but where instead you talk about video editing and references to Hawaii and Factcheck and even Chester A. Arthur. I haven’t even mentioned Arthur, despite your claim to the contrary.

I’m used to Birthers moving the goalposts. But even I’m floored to see someone try to completely change GAMES in mid-conversation.

So I’m taking it back to the original dispute. It was asserted that Maya Soetoro-Ng has told the press that her brother was born at Queen’s. This is false. Everything strongly points to the conclusion that in writing the article, a high school kid got a bunch of quotes from Maya Soetoro, and cribbed the biographical background info on Barack Obama, including the Queen’s reference, from Wikipedia. There’s little reason to think he got that bad bit of info from Maya, and there’s NO reason to think that he interviewed Barack at all.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Farrar and BP2 are a couple of nuts that escaped from FreeRepublic.com. You can present facts on engraved paper, verified by JC himself and you won’t change their so-called minds. Here is a link to the post on FR.com that’s running simultaneously to this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2349118/posts

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear MAL,

The 14th Amendment does no such thing. This is a common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship and the 14th Amendment, but a strict reading of the 14th amendment makes it clear that this amendment simply conveys at birth naturalized U.S. citizenship, not natural born U.S. citizenship. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of the phase “natural born citizen” and the word “citizen” in Article II, Section 1, the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a U.S. citizen.”

The 14th amendment states in Section 1:

Section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

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

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The fifth section details something very important, it reads

Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the 14th Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized U.S. citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

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

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for presidential office. Clearly, the 14th Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers U.S. citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized.

In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the 14th Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The 14th Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The 14th Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

4. And as you have so kindly mentioned, the Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Syllabus

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

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

5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the 14th Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born citizen” status.

Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. ‘In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The Constitution directly specified three types of citizens at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the 14th Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go find John McCain’s birth certificate. I thought sure he produced it, together with other supporting evidence, as part of the Senate record in his qualification hearing.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

“Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go find John McCain’s birth certificate. I thought sure he produced it, together with other supporting evidence, as part of the Senate record in his qualification hearing.”

The notion that the Senate had qualification hearings for McCain is another myth.

Here’s what actually happened. On April 2, 2008, there was a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee heard testimony from Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, mostly on the subject of immigration. You can find a link to the transcript at http://judiciary.senate.gov/resources/transcripts/110transcripts.cfm .

On page 12 of the 47 page transcript of the hearing, Senator Patrick Leahy asked one question of Chertoff regarding McCain’s Constitutional eligibility. Leahy noted that the Senate was going to consider a special declaration about McCain, and that Chertoff was a former federal judge and the head of U.S. immigration law. Leahy said he had no doubts that McCain was eligible, Chertoff agreed, and that was it. McCain’s name was mentioned precisely once in 47 pages.

And that was the only “hearing” the Senate ever had regarding John McCain’s eligibility. One question, in an otherwise unrelated hearing. On April 10 the resolution was introduced, co-sponsored by Leahy, on April 24 the resolution was reported to the committee, and on April 30 the Senate unanimously approved the resolution.

So McCain definitely never produced his birth certificate for any qualification hearings, because there were never any qualification hearings.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Secondly, when somebody says “natural born” citizen to a member of the general public, they assume that means both parents are U.S. citizens. That, my dear friend, is what the vast majority of the general public believe”

There’s also the problem of Bobby Jindall, who was born to two non-citizen parents and yet has been talked about as a presidential and vice presidential candidate. You’d think if everyone knows you need 2 citizen parents SOMEONE in the Republican Party would have pulled him aside and mentioned it to him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren Collins,

I want to thank you for correcting the myth that John McCain ever published his birth certificate. Sometimes it is hard to shift the facts from the fiction during a political discourse.

Again, for the record, thank you.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

I do believe that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. And I’ll briefly address both strands of accusations made against him.

First, there is no substantive reason to believe he was born anywhere other than Hawaii. The rumors that he was born in Kenya began as just that: unsubstantiated, unsourced rumors posted on anti-Obama and anti-Muslim websites. One of the earliest claims, which is STILL occasionally repeated, is that his Kenyan half-brother and half-sister said he was born there. Yet no one has ever actually managed to identify where or when they supposedly said so. And claiming his mother went from Hawaii to Kenya to give birth is like claiming that Barbara Bush had Dubya in Australia instead of Connecticut. It is very nearly halfway around the world. And at this point, there’s more public evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii than there is about Joe Biden’s birth in Scranton. But nobody’s scrutinizing Biden.

Second, Obama was born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother. There might be some small uncertainties about what constitutes a ‘natural-born citizen’ in some factually unusual circumstances (like a kid born to foreign parents in a US embassy), but being born in the U.S. (like Jindal) and especially being born in the U.S. to a U.S. mother (like Obama) has for a long, long time been accepted as bestowing natural-born citizen status. In 200+ years many children of immigrants have run for President, and it wasn’t until Summer 2008 that immigrant parentage was suddenly discovered to be a disqualifying condition for the office of President.

It’s notable that even after more than a year, there has been a severe paucity of serious legal scholars to sign onto the ‘two-citizen-parent’ theory. As in, close to zero. If it was a legitimate contender for the definition, there would be at least *some* outspoken legal experts defending it, whether ex-judges or law school professors or folks from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. The fact that the ‘two-citizen-parent’ approach has attracted the support of pretty much none of them, and is instead headlined by a handful of fringe lawyers like Phil Berg (a 9/11 Truther) and Orly Taitz, indicates exactly how much serious legal ground the theory has to stand on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Come on you goofballs. Everyone knows Hillary went to Kenya to kiss all of the headstones of Obama’s relatives.

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

Throughout our conversation, I have greatly appreciated your openness and demeanor. All too often in my previous eligibility discussions online, even the most straightforward factual rebuttals are met with hostility. I have enjoyed our back-and-forth.

Which is why I’m a little surprised at this latest comment. You directly asked me a question, and I wrote you a 350-word response, knowing that it’s quite possible I was writing only for your eyes. I *could* write a fully thorough explanation, but I’m not about to pen a thousand-plus word argument for a blog comment.

I will, however, give it a second go, but I’m going to do it kinda bullet-point style, to keep things relatively short. So here goes. These first several assume birth in Hawaii; I will deal with the Kenyan birth allegations further down.

- I have a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary in front of me. It defines “natural born citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” It then defines “naturalized citizen” as being “A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.” It does not list any other kinds of citizen, only by birth or naturalization. This points to the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

- I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science and a law degree. Everything I learned in school, both undergraduate and graduate, points to the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen, and nothing I learned suggests otherwise.

- Two hundred plus years of electoral precedent and the public understanding of what constitutes a natural-born citizen (for instance, see WWI draft cards), and the lack of any prior eligibility challenges akin to the one made against Obama, supports the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

- The consensus opinion of the legal scholarly community as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” supports the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Whereas there are essentially zero legal scholars who have given support to the ‘two-citizen-parent’ theory, which suggests that it is a fringe and wholly Constitutionally unsupported theory.

- Obama faced seven opponents in the Democratic primary, in addition to Republican opponent John McCain. All of them had election lawyers. Out of those eight, precisely zero of them ever so much as accused him of being ineligible for not being a natural-born citizen. Even Hillary, who refused to concede until the eleventh hour and who would have been the automatic Democratic nominee if he had been declared ineligible, never even suggested that he was ineligible. This supports the conclusion that he is a natural-born citizen.

So assuming a birth in Hawaii, my belief that Obama is a natural-born citizen is supported by the preeminent legal dictionary, my own legal and political education, two centuries of precedent, the legal scholarly community, and everyone who had a personal stake in Obama’s eligibility status.

As for why I believe he was born in Hawaii:

- The Certification of Live Birth says Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The newspaper birth announcements say he was born in Hawaii. The director of the Hawaii State Department of Health has said “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.” Obama has consistently said, for 48 years, that he was born in Hawaii.

- There was never *any* doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii until spring 2008, four years after his name started getting mentioned as a Presidential contender, and over a year after he started his campaign. And the claims that he was born outside Hawaii were started and spread by anonymous and pseudonymous folks online, without any sources to back up their claims that ‘I heard that his mother had gone to Kenya…’ And in the year and a half since those initial rumors started being written online, not a single bit of evidence has turned up that the rumor-authors could have been relying on.

- Evidence ’supporting’ a Kenyan birth has consistently proven to be falsified, manipulated, grossly exaggerated, or non-existent. Meanwhile, the ‘experts’ who claimed that the Hawaii evidence was faked or forged consistently turned out to be liars and frauds themselves.

- And as obvious as this seems, I feel I should say it anyway: the notion that Ann Dunham traveled from Hawaii to Kenya to give birth is really, really stupid. I could mince words here, but I’m not. It’s just absurd on its face, and it’s barely even internally coherent. It’s a 10,000 mile plane trip from a first-world nation to a third-world nation, with no direct flights in-between. (By contrast, Joe Biden was born just a 200-mile car trip from Toronto, but no one claims he could’ve been born in Canada, even though it’s 1/50 the distance and could be driven in a few hours.) Until spring 2008, there had never been so much as the suggestion that Ann Dunham had ever set foot in Kenya during her lifetime, much less while she was pregnant. There is still no actual evidence that she ever traveled to Kenya. She knew no one there, and didn’t speak the language. And for her to obtain a birth registration by August 8, which said that her son was born in Honolulu, would have required a considerable amount of deception and fraud (which of course raises the internal consistency problem of: why go to Kenya in the first place to give birth if you want your child’s vital records to say he was born in Hawaii, and want it so hard that you’re willing to commit fraud?)

So there’s a lot of credible evidence to support a Hawaiian birth, as opposed to a lot of speculation and non-credible evidence to dispute a Hawaiian birth or support a birth anywhere else. There is no more credible reason to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii than there is to doubt that Joe Biden was born in Pennsylvania, or that Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas, or that Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois. There is simply no reason to demand extraordinary birthplace evidence from Obama that was not demanded of previous candidates or Presidents.

Finally, to preempt any questions as to where my political loyalties lie, I am not a Democrat. I regularly vote Libertarian, and I have rarely voted Democratic for a federal office. I have never voted for a Democrat for President, and I did not vote for Obama last November. Rather, I voted for, and strongly supported, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. And I fully stand by my choice, because I continue to oppose much of what Obama has done in office. But despite that, I can’t abide denialism, so I find myself forced to defend his eligibility against unsourced, unsubstantiated, and unsupported allegations. It’s something of a Golden Rule thing, really.

Well guess what: I still managed to write a comment that edged over a thousand words. And I’ve tried to keep it cold, hard, and straightforward. You’re welcome.

• Link
• Report this comment

David,

“I apologize if my question wasn’t focused enough to allow you to address what the writers of the U.S. Constitution meant by “natural born” citizen and how Barack Obama considers himself one in less than 350 words.”

Except that your question didn’t ask anything about the writers of the U.S. Constitution. You asked: “Now, tell me again, why you believe Barack Obama is a nartual born citizen; or do you?” And I’ve done what any lawyer would do in response to a question like that: I’ve cited precedent, authority, and experience. Precedent and authority that, I notice, you don’t seem to rebut. Rather, you cited only your personal interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case, which is not the interpretation held by the American legal community.

If you had wanted to ask specifically about the Founders, and not why I believe what I believe, then you shouldn’t have asked why I believe what I believe.

“And one doesn’t need a law degree to understand that natural born citizenship means being a citizen by natural law, not by statute.”

And Obama is a U.S. citizen by natural law. He was born on U.S. soil, to an American mother. He did not receive U.S. citizenship via statute.

“There appear to be only three ways you can be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court as being natural born. In both its majority and minority opinion in the Wong case, it agreed on what is unquestionably Natural Born: 1) Born of two citizen parents on native soil 2) Born of two citizen parents on foreign soil when parents are diplomats 3) Born of two citizen parents in foreign territory, occupied by native country”

There are several law schools here in Georgia. Each one has several professors of Constitutional law. Every one of those professors would tell you that there is NO ‘two-citizen-parent’ requirement to be a natural born citizen, if you’re born on U.S. soil. Every one will tell you that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.

Every single one.

Call ‘em if you don’t believe me. ‘Two citizen parents’ is a made-up requirement, manufactured through creatively erroneous readings of cases like Wong.

Can you cite a single legal expert or opinion or legal definition from the ENTIRE 20th century that clearly states that “two citizen parents” are required for natural-born citizenship status? Not inferring that through plural nouns, as in “children (plural) born of parents (also plural),” but a clear statement of “two citizen parents”?

Because if that definition of “natural born citizen” is even a tenth as set in stone as ineligibility proponents would have us believe, surely there ought to be a WEALTH of available clear citations to that effect from the past two centuries, and not just an obscure law journal article and the most reviled Supreme Court decision of all time.

So I’ve said why I believe Obama is a natural born citizen. Why do you suspect he’s not?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Loren Collins,

Actually, in that last paragraph, I misspoke. I would like to correct it to read: Clearly, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind something more than a citizen when they inserted the term “natural-born” citizen into Article I, Section II, Clause IV of the U.S. Constitution. While the place of birth can confer U.S. citizenship, it would take the citizenship of the father to establish a “natural-born” U.S. citizenship.

ex animo
davidfarrar

• Link
• Report this comment

The term “natual born citizen” in the constitution had a specific meaning when the constitution was written and that defination still applies today. There is plenty of legal material written about what it means and the bloger would be wise to educate himself about the constitution before making proclaimations that are false and misleading. The typical liberal excuse and spin explaining to the public as to why they are above the law is “everybody does it!” When Clinton committed perjury in a sexual harassment law suit all we heard from liberals was “everybody does it.” Mere mortals would face legal penalities for committing perjury; liberals however, are special and above the law.

Natural born citizenship is a requirement the founders deemed necessary to be sure people with foreign loyalities do not become the president. This presents a problem for our “progressives” who want to pretend that an immigrant’s loyalities to their Nations of Origin should be placed above their loyalities to the United States is a good thing. They also like to pretend they are speical “citizens of the world” rather than citizens of the United States of America.

What we see here is a Liberal trying to redefine the constitution to fit his agenda and spin his political party’s legal problem. Progressives call it the “living constitution” and that is how they are killing constitutional freedom. The constitution does not mean what it means – it means what Liberals say it means from day to day to serve their latest fads and agendas. It means something different for their friends than it does for it’s enemies. Good luck with keeping that up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lauren Collins,

I am new to this subject so forgive me if this question has been answered. If as you say this matter has been settled by legal scholars and in the courts, why does the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual and state, “It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution, and, therefore, eligible for the presidency.”

Also in your earlier arguments you stated that Black’s law dictionary defines natural born citizen as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” and thus concluded that geographic location of the birth determines jurisdiction. How does your statement reconcile with the legislative definition used at the time of the drafting of the fourteenth amendment of “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” or in the words of the primary author Sen. Jacob Howard “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.”

Like I said I am new to this and am just trying sort out all of the conflicting statements. I haven’t formed an opinion yet and am not looking for a fight just answers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ben,

I’m always happy to provide help.

As for your first question, I’d first like to point out that I didn’t claim that the definition of “natural born citizen” has been settled by the courts. The courts haven’t settled it because they haven’t been faced with a legitimate, justiciable dispute that needed a definition. And I even admitted above that there may be some circumstances where natural-born citizenship can be legitimately disputed; such a dispute might one day lead to a court case.

However, the judgment of two centuries of American political practice, and the consensus opinion of the overwhelming majority of the American legal community, is that birth on U.S. soil makes you a natural-born citizen. That much is accepted, and we can be assured that no court would contravene it. As such, Obama is a natural born citizen.

As for your second concern, apart from the fact that the legislative intent of one vote-caster is not at all binding, to suggest that a child born on U.S. soil, to a U.S. citizen, might not be a “natural born” U.S. citizen is to put foreign countries in control of who can and cannot become President. Not all countries grant citizenship to the children of citizens living abroad. What if Obama’s father had been from, say, Zamunda, and did not inherit a foreign citizenship. He would have been a U.S. citizen, and only a U.S. citizen. No foreign “allegiance.” A natural-born citizen. And yet the only difference between the scenarios is the nature of a foreign country’s citizenship law. The foreign country might grant automatic citizenship to the children of its natives even if the expatriate has changed his own citizenship; what of his child?

What if Britain, tomorrow, decided to declare that all persons born in America were also British citizens? Every American has dual citizenship and dual allegiance from birth. Is no one then a natural-born citizen?

• Link
• Report this comment

To save everyone some time, a law at the time of O’s brith “required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for 10 years, including five after reaching the age of 14, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. Obama’s mother was 18 when he was born.” So, the mother could not have conferred citizenship if he was born outside of the U.S. So would not be a citizen, let alone a natural born one, if he wasn’t born in the U.S.

So, that narrows it down to being born in the U.S. That’s the only shot he has, if that confers natural born citizenship. Unfortunately, that means that Osama Bin Laden’s child (if the mother of that child snuck through the Mexico border and she had the child here)could theroetically be president some day. Maybe that’s okay. I don’t know, but we will assume for the time being that being born on U.S. soil is the only requirement for natural born.

Unfortunately, we may never know if Obama was really born in the US, because Obama doesn’t want anyone seeing the documentation. In Hawai’i, they will not confirm if the document available on line is real. They just tell us that O is a natural born citizen, but they won’t tell us what documents they have (besides Pelosi’s cerification) that shows that. O won’t share kindergarten records (probably a BC in there) or college records (foreign student aid, etc.) O won’t even let me request my own copy of the short form of the BC that is already published on-line. This is a major problem since Hawaii had at least THREE different ways at the time to get a Hawaii birth certificate for a foreign born child.

So the “transparent” president won’t share the long form version of the BC. Yes, I know that maybe that’s more extreme than what we usually require, but maybe there was no reason to doubt any other sitting president (besides Chester Arthur). Hawai’i has seemed to hint that they have birth records (plural) which means that there was probably an adoption in there, which may change your birth place by court order. So why is it so hard to come up with the document? Can someone tell me? I don’t think that there is any proof in either case because no one is granted access to the documents, so I don’t know. I would say that O was PROBABLY born in Hawaii, and I thought that was the case, until he started fighting all the court cases rather than just produce the document. Just sounds fishy to me…

• Link
• Report this comment

Loren,

You are the one that brought up the McCain “hearing” on April 2, 2008. So why didn’t you mention the fact that Chertoff and Leahy both agreed that it takes citizen parentS to be considered a natural born citizen?

Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention
one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this:
I believe—and we have had some question in this Committee to
have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was
born in the Panama Canal Zone, that he meets the constitutional
requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never
had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement.
You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the
agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any
doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any
doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become
President?
Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is
that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-
born American citizen.
Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you.

• Link
• Report this comment

jd says “So why didn’t you mention the fact that Chertoff and Leahy both agreed that it takes citizen parentS to be considered a natural born citizen?”

Because they were only talking about the case of John McCain, who clearly was born outside the USA to parents who were citizens. That is ONE way to be a naturally born citizen. The other is to be born on US Soil regardless of parentage. If 2 parents were the only way to be a citizen, than birth place wouldn’t matter at all, and that is how natural born would have been described for centuries. But it isn’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

To Imo56: “Fifth, the Founding Fathers did not elucidate the term “natural born citizen” in specific terms since it was universally accepted at the time as to what it meant. The Founding Fathers had their legal training in Common Law and IF they had wanted to stray from historical definitions in the Constitution – they WOULD have EXPRESSLY stated so. To them, a natural born citizen was born under the jurisdiction of the sovreign AND owed a single, distinct loyalty to that sovreign and that sovreign ONLY. In the most general terms, it meant a child born on English soil to two English subjects. In the case of a child born to aliens, it meant being born on English soil to aliens who owed NO allegiance to a different sovreign and that sovreign DID NOT confer citizenship (subjectship?) to the child.”

The Founders DID indeed know what common law said natural born subject or citizen meant… and it wasn’t birth on English soil to two citizen parents.

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

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

“The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled An act to enable His Majesty’s natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens…”

“…this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,
‘if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,’ and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”

• Link
• Report this comment