January 28, 2011

"Why won't the birther issue die?"

Hmmm?

319 comments:

1 – 200 of 319   Newer›   Newest»
Original Mike said...

Nothing ever dies, anymore.

G Joubert said...

Because it seems likely that there's something being hidden. Obama may be eligible to be POTUS, but why the hiding?

lucid said...

I haven't followed this issue closely, and I think he is a citizen and eligible for the presidency and even if he weren't, it should be rendered moot by the fact that he was elected, which should take precedence over any technical citizenship issues.

That said, I do have the impression that there is some early documentation of the birth that has been held back, and I do wonder if the reason it has been held back is because it contains some information that would be damaging.

For example, is his religion listed as Muslim (which would not make him a Muslim now, but which would be a pretty sensational headline).

Or is there something about who is listed as his father or how his race is described.

I assume something is held back because as i understand it no original documents have been provided, but rather more recent documents based on the earlier documents.

In my own case, i could show moire recent documentation of my birth, but i also have a copy of the original birth certificate.

Original Mike said...

From the link: "The "birther issue" won't die because if it did Chris Matthews and MSNBC (and POLITICO apparently) would have lost one of their favorite "look how crazy the right wing in this country is" tropes"

This is exactly right. The only place I hear any birther stuff is on MSNBC.

Ann said...

"For example, is his religion listed as Muslim (which would not make him a Muslim now, but which would be a pretty sensational headline)."

Except there is no leaving the Muslim faith, except under pain of death . . .

edutcher said...

Maybe because the idiot who was going to stop all this can't find the birth cert.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, I thought the whole thing was a lot of nonsense. I thought there was something silly on it, like his real name was Stanley Ann Dunham, Jr, and was a lot more interested in his health records and academic transcripts.

Now, I really would like to see it.

(I keep thinking how they tried to make everybody think McCain wasn't a citizen because he was born in the Canal Zone.)

Original Mike said...

I don't understand what charging $100 is supposed to do. You don't have to pay until they actually produce it, do you?

1jpb said...

Althouse said 'die.'

Shame.

Ann said...

To clarify, I'm not Ann Althouse.

TMink said...

Lucid, you are completely and dangerously wrong. America is a nation of laws. When our government ceases to follow the law, they are placing themselves above the law. And that will INEVCITABLY lead to despotism.

Now, I believe that our president was born in the US and that is not the problem with his birth certificate.

The problem with his birth certificate is that it says "White" under race.

Trey

SteveR said...

It has been said that the paperwork is being held to be released for maximum political benefit. Get the issue continuously brought up (Hawaiian democratic Governor), etc, say Oct 2012

Clearly he has the documents....

I don't really care, even as perfectly eligible, he wasn't qualified.

garage mahal said...

because they are a bunch of weirdos.

traditionalguy said...

Ridicule was a weapon against those asking questions Obama supporters had no answers for. It worked for 2+ years until the far left joined the far right in wishing to see Obama gone, the sooner the better. Now the easy issue of Obama's citizenship vel non seems to meet a lot of folks needs. No high crime and misdemeanor needed...just an easy impeachment for lying on his job application. if that justifies some protest votes against Obama like a Ralph Nader on the ballot, what's wrong with that. We could clear this up if we want to. Find all of the possible nurses and doctors present at his unrecorded birth in Honoluly to testify.

Florida said...

"Why won't the birther issue die?"

Maybe because Hawaii's new Democrat governor says he can't locate an original birth certificate and thus, cannot prove Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Nevertheless, the issue will die, on November 2, 2012.

Barack Obama tricked the electors of the Electoral College into to vote for him by producing a faked birth certificate in 2008.

Too late to do anything about that now. But it won't matter in 2012 because Barack Obama is not going to be nominated by Democrats for re-election.

And even if he is nominated, those same punk'd Electoral College electors from 2008 will be under no legal obligation to award their ballots to him in 2012, since he refuses to produce a valid birth certificate.

Barack Obama will not be elected by the Electoral College ever again.

And it's the Electoral College ... not the people ... which elects our President.

AllenS said...

I'd like to see a bunch of our 57 states pass legislation where you cannot be on any ballot in the state, running for any office if you can't or won't produce a birth certificate.

I applied for Social Security when I turned 62 and they demanded a birth certificate and my DD 214 because I was a veteran. Wasn't a problem for me, and it shouldn't be a bother for anyone else either.

DADvocate said...

Stuart Gottlieb hits the nail on the head, "The "birther issue" won't die because if it did Chris Matthews and MSNBC (and POLITICO apparently) would have lost one of their favorite "look how crazy the right wing in this country is" tropes."

Read the responses by the lefties that follow Gottlieb and they prove his point.

I think Obama's hiding something. Probably that he is the bastard son of an American woman and a Kenyan man. Or, maybe, no father is listed on the birth certificate. Or, lastly, that Obama was born in a stable one night when a hotel room couldn't be found.

Original Mike said...

"It worked for 2+ years until the far left joined the far right in wishing to see Obama gone"

Maybe that explains Abercrombie's apparent fumble. He's in cahoots with a potential 2012 challenger.

lucid said...

@Tmink.

No, I am not "absolutely and dangerously wrong," but you seem to be a literal-minded absolutist.

Some situations are not precisely covered by laws. I can't imagine the Supreme Court would invalidate a vote of the entire national electorate based on what amounts to a technicality. It would be a problem, but a very solvable problem.

For example, suppose it turned out that he was an hour too young to be elected president. Would that really invalidate his election in your view?

I do agree with you that there may well be something there like race or religion that would be politically inapt.

Original Mike said...

"I think Obama's hiding something."

I like Trey's hypothesis.

Seven Machos said...

I'm still upset about the fluoride in the drinking water.

Trooper York said...

"Or, maybe, no father is listed on the birth certificate."

I think you put your finger on it. I bet under father it says "unknown" and they really don't want to broadcast that. Not that it matters very much. It is never the crime it's always the coverup.

Michael K said...

The Democrats are trying very hard to use ridicule when the simple production of the birth certificate would end the issue. It's a bit like Kerry's military records except that the media was able to fend off the questions until Obama was elected.

Florida said...

" ...or religion that would be politically inapt."

Such as definitive proof that Barack Obama is in fact a Muslim apostate and thus subject to the being beheaded should he ever bow down in the presence of King Saud ever again?

Is that what you're driving at?

garage mahal said...

Barack Obama tricked the electors of the Electoral College into to vote for him by producing a faked birth certificate in 2008.

This is the reason it won't die. Because conservatives steadfastly refuse to rein in their fruitcake fringe like Florida/New Ham Hussein.

Seven Machos said...

Florida has to be a Moby. Has to be.

gardeningasylum said...

The "discussion" you link sounds like the tut-tutting of the nomenklatura. It is not irrational or right-wing crazy to wonder why the birth certificate will not be produced. That is why the issue won't go away.

JAL said...

I am with TMink re lucid's dismissal of the Constitution of the United States and related laws as merely "technical issues" wrt citizenship (or anything else).

Egad, man.

Do you realize what you just wrote?

I mean, think about it a bit before just tapping stuff like that out. (Do you vote?)

I had heard way back when that BHO had it withheld because it had something that might be perceived as negative re his father.

TMink's thought that it said says "white" -- or equivalent is something I hadn't thought of, but it seems that could have been taken care of with a serious look, a hand wave, then a toothy smile. ("You know how racist people were Back Then.")

Same goes for "Muslim," actually.

Now what is there is NO father listed? Then why would that be? Frank Marshall Davis springs to mind. Maybe Obama Sr. was paid for his name? Maybe that's why Stanley headed for the mainland with the wee babe?

Who knows. (The Shadow? Nope. The POTUS.) But there is something weird going on. The fact that this guy has NO paper trail is such a huge red flag I cannot believe Hillary & CO. did not latch on like that leopard.

And the people who voted for him? They just went along for the ride, figuring if there was a problem, someone would have called Dan Raher.

I think they just didn't realize how big and problematical the holes were.

Florida said...

" ...the simple production of the birth certificate would end the issue."

They cannot produce one, because there isn't one to be produced.

It is too easy to detect a forgery (as Dan Rather so inaptly proved), so they won't produce one at all. If they produced one, it would easily be shown to be a forgery so they just won't produce one.

And they don't have to, after all.

He's already in, baby. And posession of the White House is 9/10s of the law.

Seven Machos said...

conservatives steadfastly refuse to rein in their fruitcake fringe

Leftists certainly cannot reign in their fruitcake fringe. Get a handle on these morons who want to foment violent uprisings in the streets because the government is broke.

Oh wait. That's your leadership.

DADvocate said...

The problem with his birth certificate is that it says "White" under race. - Trey

I like Trey's hypothesis.

Me, too. I'm not sure it's more likely to be true than no father or unmarried parents but it's a definite possibility.

Obama is quite light skinned. Native Hawaiians are pretty much as dark or darker than Obama. He could be listed as "Hawaiian", "Pacific Islander", "White", or something else other than "Black".

JAL said...

"No father."

Great minds ...

Still -- could be dismissed with "Sigh. {racist} Back Then ...{racist}...."

Except he wrote That Book ....

G Joubert said...

There is some merit to the Gottlieb argument, but it doesn't really explain the phenomena. Bottom line is, Americans on both ends of the political spectrum love their conspiracy theories. And there's some psychological jiu-jitsu at work too. Whenever the conspiracy theory (whatever it is) is refudiated by whatever means, the proponents of the theory turn that refudiation around to buttress their case. It becomes self-perpetuating.

MnMark said...

"Why won't the birther issue die?"

Because Obama won't, or more likely can't (because it doesn't exist in the records) release his long form birth certificate.

That is the whole explanation.

Just release it, and the issue disappears.

But he never releases it, and left-wingers and the media never ask him directly why he won't.

So it will go on and one until it is released or shown not to exist.

JAL said...

So does that make him a lying liar?

Lucien said...

Cui bono?

Isn't it obvious that the kid from Scranton is behind this?

1jpb said...

"To clarify, I'm not Ann Althouse."

I know. But she mentioned issue homicide in the title of this post.

JAL said...

@ lucid "based on what amounts to a technicality"

Try "fraud."

Works better.

Just Lurking said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"So it will go on and one until it is released or shown not to exist."

Hard to prove a negative.

Just Lurking said...

So there is a proposed law to charge $100 to see Obama's birth certificate. And yet a few days back there were headlines that said the Hawaiian gov. couldn't find the birth certificate. Why do they want to charge $100 to show people something they can't find?

Maybe it's nonsense like this that is keeping the "birther" issue alive. The whole situation warrants a big, giant "WTF?".

DADvocate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

That's not a debate, it's a litmus test. Once you read Wyoming Democrat (!) James Byrd's two-sentence response ("Get over it") every blurb that follows reads like parody.

Tibore said...

Good God. Revenant nailed it a few days ago, and I absolutely agree with him:

"Revenant said...
The number of conservatives here who have turned out to be closet Birthers is disturbing. It's like I'm in a Twilight Zone where DailyKos isn't wrong about absolutely everything."

Henry said...

garge wrote: "Because conservatives steadfastly refuse to rein in their fruitcake fringe..."

How do you rein in a fruitcake?

I think that's your answer.

Original Mike said...

"How do you rein in a fruitcake?"

Yeah, garage, once you've reined in Jeremy get back to us and let us know how you did it.

Chef Mojo said...

Here's how it works:

Produce the birth certificate, and the issue goes away.

Admit that you don't have it, or that you're technically not a citizen, etc., the issue will eventually go away, because nobody is about to invalidate a presidential election at this point, especially SCOTUS.

Do nothing, and the issue continues to fester and gain momentum, making the outcomes of the first two points moot, because then it becomes an issue of honesty and character.

It's the cover-up that screws you.

ricpic said...

Maybe the birther issue won't die because it's legit.

garage mahal said...

Jeremy is a foul mouthed and very annoying know-it-all. Don't recall any kooky conspiracy theories from him though.

Hagar said...

The fuss over John Kerry's military records has died down, because he no longer is a candidate for President or much of anything else.
Why won't he release even his DD214? There is nothing in what is known about his service, which is plenty, that would result in anything unfavorable on his DD214. So, what's the problem?

Obama is President, and his fuss is not going to go away until he does.

I presume that Mrs. Obama gave birth in Honolulu 4 Aug. 1961 as proclaimed in the Honolulu Daily Bugle, and that Barack Obama is that baby. (Though it would be fun if he wasn't. Man, the Democrats would never live that down!)
So, what's the problem? Probably just boneheaded stubbornness all around, or it may be excessive sensitivity to the dates that don't add up, though these things are freely published on the internet, or maybe there really is something embarrassing. Either way, the fuss is not going to die down until either the documents come to light, or Obama is out of office.

Big Mike said...

So what happens if someone pays their $100 and doesn't get anything in exchange? I mean, is there anything in this law requiring the state of Hawaii to actually produce a notarized copy of the actual birth certificate?

garage mahal said...

Produce the birth certificate, and the issue goes away.

Andrew Sullivan is looking for Trig Palin's birth certificate too. Why won't Sarah Palin just produce it and end this controversy?

Just Lurking said...

BTW, I don't doubt he's American. I would like to think that somewhere along the line at least that much was vetted about him.

I'm just curious why there is so much mystery surrounding a piece of paper that anyone in my family can produce. We had to have the long form to get passports, driver's licenses etc, so we all have copies. Many of us were born about the same time as Obama, in the early 1960s.

I would like to see the issue die. But conflicting headlines as we are seeing about charging money to see a missing document, will keep it going no doubt.

Seven Machos said...

I'm just curious why there is so much mystery surrounding a piece of paper that anyone in my family can produce.

Primarily because people like you keep making these sorts of statements.

G Joubert said...

With the possible exception of Ford, every president since FDR (and maybe even predating FDR), has been the object of some sort of conspiracy theory. BHO and the birthers is just the latest iteration. And these theories never die. For example, people who believe FDR wanted Pearl Harbor to happen to get into the war, and that he knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand but did nothing to stop it for that reason, still believe that. Or, those who believe GHW Bush made a midnight flight to Paris in October of 1980 on an SR-71 Blackbird to secretly negotiate with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the 1980 election, still believe that. And so on. Since these conspiracy theories never die, it's predictable that this one won't either, with or without the help of Matthews, et al. After BHO is gone from office it'll still be there.

Original Mike said...

"So what happens if someone pays their $100 and doesn't get anything in exchange?"

I would think that would open them up to a lawsuit. Why would they invite that? I don't get it.

1jpb said...

"We had to have the long form to get passports"

BHO must not have a passport.

DADvocate said...

Why do they want to charge $100 to show people something they can't find?

When you try real hard to hide something it raises suspicion. Ask any parent. If nothing is amiss, why all the hiding?

JAL said...

@Tibore, quoting revenant The number of conservatives here who have turned out to be closet Birthers is disturbing.

I'm not sure if you're not defining Birther down. If you mean people who are sure BHO was born in Kenya -- well, yeah, I think that's a Birther.

The fact is that I (and probably more than a few conservatives here) think that the Kenya birth tale is not true and way out to the end of the probability scale -- BUT since there is no nailed down evidence it didn't & I really can't say for sure, doesn't make me a Birther.

If you mean I (we) have serious questions about the funny business with his Hawaiian birth certificate-record-long form- whatever which includes the hospital name, parents names & info, delivering doctor, foot prints etc.... the original paper's existance and contents and THAT makes us Birthers -- well, yeah. If you say so.

How is that different from being informed and conscientious citizens and voters?

Big Mike said...

@Hagar, I believe that Kerry did, finally, release his military records. The "scandal" buried inside those records turned out to be a copy of his Yale transcript showing that his GPA was essentially the same as the GPA of one George W. Bush (the two were there at the same time, with Kerry graduating one year later, I believe).

This is significant only insofar as Kerry was alleged to be a sober and hard-working A student (his GPA of 76 was roughly equivalent to a C) while George Dubya has never made any bones about coasting through college by staggering from one party to the next. For the two to have roughly the same GPA either Bush is much brighter than any lefty is prepared to admit, and Kerry much less intelligent, or Kerry was also a barely-could-find-time-to-attend-class party boy himself.

DADvocate said...

I'm just curious why there is so much mystery surrounding a piece of paper that anyone in my family can produce.

Me, too. It seems it would be so simple. It not like Obama was born in a hut in Africa. Or, was he...?

...BHO and the birthers is just the latest iteration.

Personally, I think Obama's the anti-Christ.

TMink said...

lucid, I am a flexible guy, but I know deeply in my bones that American exceptionalism is rooted in part by our being a nation of laws. That is one of the differences that separated America from the rest of the world at our inception.

If President Obama did not meet the constitutional requirements for his office he should be thrown out of that office and all legislation and agreements he made would be null and void. The wishes of the American people cannot overrule the law of America. That way lies madness.

But let me repeat, I think he is bona fide and I am not a birther. Some situations are not covered by laws. The requirement for our president to be a citizen is.

If the law is changed, that is fine. But the constitution is binding and the strength of our nation.

I hope that makes my position more clear, and I hope you respond with yours. I appreciate your thoughts.

Trey

JAL said...

@1jpb BHO must not have a passport.

hahahah.

Of course he has a passport. He's POTUS. *Rules* do not apply to him.

For instance, did you notice the date of issuance was redacted on his passport they showed on the news last year? That's pretty funny, isn't it. Haha.

Any thoughts why? Haha. Because he just got the sucker.

Sarah Palin's had hers longer than the citizen of the world had his maybe?

Of course he went Pahkistahn to visit his roomates in the early 80s.

What passport did he use, 1jpb?

Got me.

Seven Machos said...

The people allegedly on the right here who are foaming at the mouth over this issue are making the rest of the right look like idiots.

Can you not understand that this is a losing issue? That even if you were somehow to win this battle, you would lose the larger war?

Get over it. Get your heads out of your asses. Focus on issues that matter.

1jpb said...

Dad,

The libs would love to report on such a movement among cons, hopefully it will pick up steam, until then, the birther thing isn't bad.

JAL said...

garage - trig isn't registering to vote or get his driver's license or even running for public office last time I checked.

You must know something we don't know

CachorroQuente said...

I've never seen a Hawaii "long form" birth certificate, but I'm looking at a copy of a Wisconsin "original certificate of live birth" from 1951 and it doesn't state the race or religion of the child or the religion of either parent. States the "color or race" of each parent, though. I don't think it's possible to unambiguously determine the "race" of a mixed race child at birth and I seriously doubt that an option for such a declaration, or the declaration of a newborn child's religion (a stupid concept), was part of the Hawaii birth record for Obama.

As for the legality of the document that the Obama campaign did produce -- it's total and complete. In some states, as I understand, it is impossible to acquire a copy of a "long form" birth certificate, probably because in a significant number of cases, the "long form" birth certificate no longer exists. When I applied for a passport in 1992, I was told that I could not get a copy of my birth certificate, though I know the document existed because I have a copy of it that was subsequently returned to me by a different federal agency. What I received from my county of birth was a statement of a county official on ordinary vellum (not even an official form) attesting to the fact that my birth was recorded. That is what I submitted with may application and it was accepted. My suspicion is that the records from my county of birth are available to the feds and that they can easily verify the information.

As for the proposed Arizona law that was referred to in the link, looks to be pretty stupid. It is very probable that there are no "witness" attestations on many "long form" birth certificates and there can be no requirement that a candidate for federal office make a declaration as to dual citizenship as that has nothing to do with the requirements for office when they are completely stated in the Constitution.

Other things:

I read the news article that Althouse linked to recently and the article in the Hawaii paper that was there linked and neither stated that the Hawaii governor stated that he couldn't locate the Obama "long form" birth certificate. He stated that the birth was recorded in the official records but did not state that he couldn't find the original certificate.

The State of Hawaii has officially stated (as evidenced by the document that the Obama campaign produced) that Obama was born in the State and that's all that's legally required to establish that fact. State officials, it is my understanding, have verified that the document is legitimate and properly reflects the official Hawaii State records. At least, there has been no argument that I have seen that any other documentation is required.

It's correct that Chris Mathews and the other "men of the left" on MSNBC are what's keeping this story alive. If not for them, those who give this whole thing any credence would be barking in the dark wilderness.

There is no reason that Obama should provide any more evidence than he already has. What he has presented is sufficient and the only ones who doubt it wouldn't vote of Obama anyway.

If Obama was not born in Hawaii then the certification that the campaign produced is a forgery and the Hawaii officials who attest to its accuracy are lying. If that could be true, then it is certainly true that the same officials could forge a "long form" birth certificate and the other necessary state records. Probably the other state records would be the same ones necessary to substantiate the certification that we have all seen. The reason that the Dan Rather forgery was discovered is not that it's hard to create a good forgery but that it's much easier to create a bad one. Particularly when the forger is an ignorant amateur.

Just Lurking said...

Primarily because people like you keep making these sorts of statements.

You're absolutely right.

And that's my point. You can thank the Gov. of Hawaii for making me curious. I didn't give two shits about this issue until then.

sane_voter said...

Reading those posts at the Politico site, yuk.

There were more jokers being dealt out the race card deck than I've seen in a while.

1jpb said...

JAL,

Is it possible the passports expire?

Nah.

Mick said...

Amazing to see the ignorance displayed on the Linked site, as well as this site.

The reason that the Left ITSELF doesn't want the "birth certificate" issue to die is because it is being used to hide the real Constitutional violation that Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as required by A2S1C5. The facts are already admitted. Barack Obama's father was Kenyan and imparted Obama 2 with British Citizenship at birth (he may even be a British Subject to this day). No matter if he was born in the Oval office, Obama cannot be a natural born Citizen, and knows it. What kind of man Usurps the Presidency? A dangerous one.

The thought that A2S1C5 is a mere technicality, and that the fact that he was elected makes the Constitutional eligibility requirements moot is total nonsense, and why we are a Democratic Constitutional Republic, not a "Democracy". The Constitution is the rule of the Land, not Man.

The requirement of natural born Citizenship is a security requirement designed to ensure to the highest degree that the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces be free of ANY Foreign Influence. His allegiance must be fully to the US from BIRTH, i.e one must be born in the US of US Citizen PARENTS. No Statute is necessary to make such a child a US Citizen, and therefore he/she is a natural born Citizen. Any other combination, i.e 1 non citizen parent and 1 US Citizen parent in the US, or birth to 2 US Citizen parents abroad, requires a Congressional statute to make that child a US Citizen, as they are born with multiple allegiances.

Seven Machos is in fact correct, the only children that are BORN US Citizens with NO STATUTE necessary (natural law) are those born in the US of 2 US Citizen PARENTS. EVERYONE else is naturalized by Congressional statute in some way (by oath, or passively by election of residence).

To allow Obama and his merry band of Marxists (and their enablers across the aisle) to set this precedent endangers the security of this country. Just so you know, McCain was born in Panama, and is NOT a natural born Citizen either, and neither is Bobby Jindal (born in La. of Non Citizen resident alien parents.)

Obama MUST be unseated, and the 25th Amendment provides Congress with the method for Constitutional removal of an ineligible Federal Officer; Quo Warranto (by what authority do you hold this office) w/in the DC District according to DC District code.

No one here has or will prove me wrong. The TRUTH sets me free.

garage mahal said...

So many questions!

I especially love the in depth KOS animated - kerning differences. I mean, when you see those black and blue bars flashing like that? It just hit me like a ton of bricks.

Wake up sheeple!

Original Mike said...

"@Hagar, I believe that Kerry did, finally, release his military records."

My recollection is he called a couple of hand picked reporters to his office and let them "see" them for a brief period of time.

Original Mike said...

"You can thank the Gov. of Hawaii for making me curious. I didn't give two shits about this issue until then."

I have to say, that's when I started paying attention. I still don't know the deal about long form vs. short form.

DADvocate said...

The libs would love to report on such a movement among cons,...

Anything but having to talk about how bad they're fucking up nearly everything.

1jpb said...

" The TRUTH sets me free."

Is that the truther motto?

Pastafarian said...

Althouse, you saucy little pot-stirrer you.

"Hmmm", indeed.

Chef Mojo said...

Andrew Sullivan is looking for Trig Palin's birth certificate too. Why won't Sarah Palin just produce it and end this controversy?

Garage, that's particularly moronic, even for you.

I'll bite.

First, it's none of Sullivan's fucking business. What part of that don't you understand? Really, garage?

But, let's assume it is Sullivan's business in your fevered brain. Trig Palin is not running for president. His mom might be, but he's not. I'm sure Sarah Palin is all ready to whip out her birth certificate at the drop of a hat, ya betcha.

Garage, are you even capable of seeing the distinction? Christ, but that's an example of world class stupid on your part.

Mick said...

TMink said,

"But let me repeat, I think he is bona fide and I am not a birther. Some situations are not covered by laws. The requirement for our president to be a citizen is."


The requirement is that the POTUS be a natural born Citizen, not "bona fide" not "US Citizen". He must be Born in the US of US Citizen PARENTS.

boycanshetype said...

I think that Obama is now toying with the birthers waiting for the most embarrassing time to produce the real records.
Wikipedia reports his mother, Ann Dunham, moved to Washington (state) one month after Obama's birth. So the newlyweds did not have deep commitment to a shared life. What if she actually made the move a month BEFORE the birth? Her parents thought it just a little white lie to phone in an announcement of a Hawaiian birth for their grandson.
And, if it was a sham shotgun wedding for her parents' sake, Barack Senior would hardly have taken Ann home to meet his family, including her sister-wife.
In any event I think the phrase "natural-born citizen" or whatever should be more clearly defined, and then enforced.

Crimso said...

"The fact that this guy has NO paper trail is such a huge red flag I cannot believe Hillary & CO. did not latch on like that leopard."

It was my understanding that the original Birthers were PUMAs.

Coketown said...

It won't die. It's a conspiracy. Conspiracies don't die. Even if Obama's afterbirth was found in a biomedical waste heap in Hawaii, birthers still wouldn't believe it.

The bigger question is why the delusion of so few people commands the attention of so many liberals and media types. If the birther theory was on life support, these people would be guarding the plug.

Seven Machos said...

He must be Born in the US of US Citizen PARENTS.

This is simply a gross misstatement of the law.

garage mahal said...


But, let's assume it is Sullivan's business in your fevered brain. Trig Palin is not running for president. His mom might be, but he's not. I'm sure Sarah Palin is all ready to whip out her birth certificate at the drop of a hat, ya betcha.


Yea I don't know. Just don't know. There's just so many questions out there. For me, personally? [and I don't care that much]. I think Trig is probably her son. BUT! Why won't this issue go away? That's all I'm asking. Why as a presidential aspirant wouldn't she just release the birth certificate? Why all the secrecy? Hell I'd even accept a short form!

chr1 said...

I was happy to read that there's a professor at Allegheny College who's mixing neuroscience and political participation willing to comment on issues like this.

I guess that's what gets you a job at Allegheny college.

Rick67 said...

I'm shocked by how delusional are many of the opinions expressed at The Arena. What morons we have in the highest level of politics and education. (Present company excluded bien sur.)

People on the right "won't kill it"? Seriously? Does this Kos writer actually read most conservative blogs? They try. They failed. They go on.

It's about racism and not accepting a black president? Oh puleez. It's about where Obama's true loyalties lie. And whether he is committed to what birthers think is the American vision.

And the best answer of all is that *no one including this president* has (so far as I know) produced the definitive proof he was born in Hawaii. And I think this suits the purposes of the Left more than it suits the Right.*

Am I birther? Nope. I don't agonize about flat earthers or 9/11 conspiracy twits either. But smart people try to understand the thinking of those with whom they disagree. Many of The Arena contributors apparently aren't.

(We have 3 out of 4 original birth certificates for my family. We have a copy of my wife's. And I've had occasions to use/show mine.)

Michael K said...

@Hagar, I believe that Kerry did, finally, release his military records. The "scandal" buried inside those records turned out to be a copy of his Yale transcript showing that his GPA was essentially the same as the GPA of one George W. Bush (the two were there at the same time, with Kerry graduating one year later, I believe).

No, the real records were never released. The issue arose because his Silver Star certificate was dated 1976 and signed by Carter's Sec Navy. A dishonorable discharge involves retracting medals, like a Silver Star. When Carter offered amnesty after his election, he also gave amnesty to dishonorable discharges, or at least some of them like Senators.

The suspicion has been that Kerry was dishonorably discharged for meeting with NK officials in Paris while a serving Navy officer. This is technically treason. That would be a difficult problem in a presidential campaign.

Original Mike said...

"Jeremy is a foul mouthed and very annoying know-it-all. Don't recall any kooky conspiracy theories from him though."

I have it on good authority that he believes:

We went into Iraq for oil.

The Rethuglicans stole the 2000 election

John Kerry was swiftboated.

AAron Rodgers suffered a concussion last Sunday.

BJM said...

Same reason that 9/11 Truthers exist; most are bat shit crazy.

However, I think the certificate "hiding" is a calculated election year rope-a-dope meme.

The official debunking will add another spittle-flecked MSM arrow to Obama's war room quiver(can I say that now?).

It's not far-fetched given that a percentage of voters already believe that the TEA party, Palin and the GOP were responsible for the Tucson shootings.

Every percentage the Dems can hold or add to their base, no matter how crazy the premise, could make a difference in a close election.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"He must be Born in the US of US Citizen PARENTS.

This is simply a gross misstatement of the law."


And you are wrong again for reasons that I've already buried you with.

wv.: wineu-- Oenophile's University.

AF said...

Why won't the truther issue go away?

AllenS said...

Then next time the obamas are in Hawaii vacationing, he should just bop over to the hospital and pick it up. How hard can that be?

edutcher said...

Interesting that people like garage and Revenant want to ID so many Conservatives as "closet birthers", but the fact is this is in their court.

Produce the damned document - if there is one.

If it were Reagan, either Bush, or McCain, the press, and they, would have screamed for proof.

If any contender for POTUS on the Republican side - Palin, Paul (either one), Jindal, Rubio - had any such question, there would be a steady drumbeat of demands from the Left.

And the real issue has become an idiot Democrat from Hawaii who said he was going to put an end to this by producing the document and then couldn't.

As I say, I'd like to see his medical records (God, how the press screamed for Reagan to produce his) and academic transcripts and, until now (anybody who wants can see my comments going back on this issue from the time it surfaced), had no interest in the birth cert (I think Linda Lingle actually said she'd seen it).

Now, yeah, all you Democrats, put up or shut up.

What ARE you hiding?

Seven Machos said...

Mick -- Everyone here thinks you are a loon. Your giant and complex edifice of "natural born citizenship" is simply and utterly a fiction.

You also have no idea what common law means. But tell us about the federal common law. Because I love that one.

Seven Machos said...

Why do you people believe that a document evidencing something is somehow more vital than the actual thing being evidenced?

If Obama is a citizen qualified to be president, then a document showing that to be true does not matter. It's just laughable the way so many people get caught up in the paper trail. Who cares?

q12345q6789 said...

"Why won't the Birther Issue Die?"

The question *is* the answer.

(Well, most of the answer, anyways)

Crimso said...

"The bigger question is why the delusion of so few people commands the attention of so many liberals and media types."

There is a posting by Althouse several down from this one that touches on this question in the context of an entirely different issue.

virgil xenophon said...

I agree with TMink and Mickis closer to the truth than most want to admit. In re the disregard many here show for him I'm reminded of a statement Orwell made as an MP in Parliament when, shortly after WWII with everyone tired of the war and wanting to move on, he rose to defend a particularly disliked blowhard who was harping (correctly) on Japanese war crimes that everyone else wanted to sweep under the rug. "What you have to understand," Orwell said, "is that these things actually happened *DESPITE* the fact that x------- says they did.."

garage mahal said...

Produce the damned document - if there is one.

It has been produced. For as many people that keep asking for it, they sure aren't looking very hard. They just reject any answer they don't want to hear.

madAsHell said...

I didn't believe it until that buffoon Ambercrombie in Hawaii promised a birth certificate, and failed.

Now I'm thinking....hey, maybe this is a problem?

Did anyone see that Ambercrombie fired the director of the health department today?

It's like the director refused to gin up a birth certificate

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"Mick -- Everyone here thinks you are a loon. Your giant and complex edifice of "natural born citizenship" is simply and utterly a fiction.

You also have no idea what common law means. But tell us about the federal common law. Because I love that one."




Right, who's this "everyone", you got a mouse in your pocket?

No matter how many times that you cannot refute anything I say, and I bury EVERY argument that you have, you continue to the next nonsense.

You cannot refute that the Declaration of Independence said that our laws are based on Natural Law.

or that "law of nations" in A1S8C10 is the body of law known as Natural Law.

or that the dicta of Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, The Venus, Dred Scott, and Perkins v. Elg described natural born Citizens exactly the same as Vattel, and The Venus cited LON by name

That Vattel's Law of Nations was the most cited source by SCOTUS in the 19th century, and Scalia sourced it in the Dicta of Heller as the natural law right of self defense.

That the writers of the 14th Amendment described natural born Citizens as those born subject to the US and NO OTHER FOREIGN POWER (that was Bingham, Howard and Trumbull). And their is NO MENTION in the hearings for the 14th A that said thay were amending the requirements for POTUS.

That the REASON for the requirement was to prevent foreign influence.


That Resolution 511 described McCain as being Natural Born because he was born "IN US CONTROLLED TERRITORY OF US CITIZEN PARENTS".


That Leahy and Chertoff both agreed at Res. 511 that "if your parents are US Citizens, then naturally you are a natural born citizen"

Laurence Tribe, and Ted Olsen, at Res. 511 defined natural born Citizens as those born "WITHIN the TERRITORY and ALLEGIANCE of a nation".

That Federalist #68 says the reason for the requirement was to prevent foreign influence, and assure that the chief magistrate was a "creature of our own".


That the founders studied Natural Law and particularly Vattel's Law of Nations extensively.

That there have been NO CONTROLLING authority that has said
that simple birth in the US constitutes a natural born Citizen, or that USC 8 S1401 describes natural born Citizens, and you cannot refute that any changes to USC 8 s1401, (if that was the definition) would be illegally amending the constitution.

That Obama never took the correct oath in public, and it could have been recorded by the media in private, but wasn't.

That Obama has NEVER explicitly said that he is a natural born Citizen.

That a pic on a website is proof of nothing (it's hearsay).

Just to name a few. But you continually resort to name calling, and ridicule in the Typical Alinskyan method, and project your failings onto others. You obviously have lost your ability to reason, due to your adoration of your master, the Usurper, and are probably a paid internet operative of said Usurper.

Seven Machos said...

Virgil -- Please show us the laws or the part of the Constitution that differentiate citizens beyond naturalized and natural born. Please show us those well-hidden gradations.

Obama's Mom was American. Therefore, Obama was American as a zygote, as an embryo, as a fetus, and as a baby in the womb, and that canal that leads to freedom whatever that's called, and at all other stages of his life. He was and is no more and no less an American than you, or me, or even Mick.

Crimso said...

On a tangential note, the exact place of birth of Philip Sheridan remains in doubt (early 19 century recordkeeping not being all that great), and it has been speculated that his own claim to having been born in the U.S. (instead of on a ship bound for the U.S. or in Ireland) was to not preclude an eventual run for President.

Original Mike said...

"It has been produced."

I'm not disputing this. I would, however, like you to explain to me, then, what the deal with Abercrombie is all about.

Original Mike said...

"that canal that leads to freedom"

This isn't freedom. I was sold a bill of goods.

I demand my right of return.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"Why do you people believe that a document evidencing something is somehow more vital than the actual thing being evidenced?

If Obama is a citizen qualified to be president, then a document showing that to be true does not matter. It's just laughable the way so many people get caught up in the paper trail. Who cares?"


A typically inane comment. The Requirement is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, not "Citizen".


wv: tryolder--- hunt for Cougars.

Seven Machos said...

Mick -- You are truly hilarious. Only you and few other true believers understand the genesis of American law. All the judges, all the elected officials, the great mass of citizens -- none of them have the secret knowledge that high priests such as Mick have.

Tell us, Mick: how did you obtain your status as a high priest of American constitutionalism? Who ordained you? It sure as fuck wasn't a college or a law school.

CachorroQuente said...

So, is Mick really sans clue or is he trolling? I guess in some cases it is impossible to tell.

The 14th amendment is really quite clear and unambiguous and there has never been within the United States any determination that a U.S. citizen as a result of birth is anything but a natural-born citizen. There is no authority whatsoever for the contention that there is a difference in the citizenship statuses of people born within the United States of two citizen parents and those born of one citizen and one non-citizen. There is also no difference between the citizenship status of those born dual citizens and those born with only US citizenship.

TMink said...

"Is that the truther motto?"

Only if Jesus was a birther. And I doubt it as he had his own birth issues.

Trey

Scott M said...

Seven,

Why the ad hominem? He made several verifiable, or not, statements. Instead of taking him to task, you would rather go out of your way to insult?

I honestly don't give a whip about the birther issue because I'm realistic enough to know that there is no...way...in...hell...the first half-black president is going to be removed from office over a legal technicality.

None of that makes you look any bigger of a man for simply lapsing into obtuse attacks.

garage mahal said...

I'm not disputing this. I would, however, like you to explain to me, then, what the deal with Abercrombie is all about.

What is the deal with Ambercrombie you need answered, if you already accept the fact that the document was produced?

TMink said...

My understanding of the citizenship requirement concurs with that of Cacharro.

Trey

Seven Machos said...

The 14th amendment

I tried that one. He keeps citing cases from like 1810.

The guy is amazing. He's not a troll. If he is, he's the best troll ever.

Seven Machos said...

Scott -- Because at this point there is no sense arguing logically with Mick or his ilk.

Tried it all.

But you go ahead and chastise me. I'm sure you feel better.

Original Mike said...

@garage: What document did he promise to produce?

Scott M said...

And you'd be right. Tingles all shooting down my legs and whatnot.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

"Virgil -- Please show us the laws or the part of the Constitution that differentiate citizens beyond naturalized and natural born. Please show us those well-hidden gradations.

Obama's Mom was American. Therefore, Obama was American as a zygote, as an embryo, as a fetus, and as a baby in the womb, and that canal that leads to freedom whatever that's called, and at all other stages of his life. He was and is no more and no less an American than you, or me, or even Mick."


And his father was Kenyan, imparting Obama 2 w/ British citizenship, by way of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother on US soil requires NATURALIZATION by election of residence at the age of majority. Until then which country had controlling jurisdiction is a matter of place of residence.

You need to study up.

Oh, and in Article 2 it says the the POTUS "must be a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN at the time..." Thus showing there is a distinct difference in the terms.

Try again?

Rich B said...

I liked the balanced discussion on the Politico website.

Just Lurking said...

It has been produced. For as many people that keep asking for it, they sure aren't looking very hard. They just reject any answer they don't want to hear.

That's what I thought as well.

But then why did the Hawaiian Gov. say he couldn't find it? Was it a bogus story? Like I said, WTF?

It certainly doesn't help Obama and the Dems if people start believing that they are being toyed with over this issue.

Seven Machos said...

Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother on US soil requires NATURALIZATION by election of residence at the age of majority.

No. It does not.

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

Produce the damned document - if there is one.

It has been produced. For as many people that keep asking for it, they sure aren't looking very hard. They just reject any answer they don't want to hear.


As I noted above, Linda Lingle, the last Republican governor, had said she'd seen it. At the time, that was enough.

Now, a Democrat governor has said it would be produced and since has admitted it can't be found.

This mess, like so many these days, is metastasizing because of Democrat incompetence. It would have remained a very fringe issue. Now, people's curiosity have been piqued.

Sofa King said...

If Obama is a citizen qualified to be president, then a document showing that to be true does not matter. It's just laughable the way so many people get caught up in the paper trail. Who cares?

Well, it certainly seems to be a huge matter when it's the government that wants to see a citizen's papers, no? You think the IRS is going to dismiss your lack of paper trail? Yet somehow when the citizens demand of their government officials the same thing their officials demand of them, it's outrageous! Absurd! Laughable! It's the government! Of course it doesn't need to justify itself!

Florida said...

" ...conservatives steadfastly refuse to rein in their fruitcake fringe like Florida/New Ham Hussein."

Conservatives don't have the desire to shut down speech, Garage. That's your side.

On our side, we value free speech and the right to dissent.

Barack Obama cannot produce a birth certificate. I believe that if he could produce one, it would have been produced by now.

The law requires that he be a US citizen to be eligible to be our President. I'm not certain that he is one. I have a reasonable doubt. But he could easily persuade Americans like me by producing an original long-form Hawaiian birth certificate. It would take just a few moments.

Barack Obama refuses to do that very reasonable thing. And so, naturally, that creates suspicion where there should be none. Barack Obama creates suspicion by his inexplicable refusal to do something that everybody else had to do in order to do something so trivial as open a checking account.

And that is the reason that the "birther" issue will not die.

It simply isn't too much to ask that he produce his documents. and his refusal to do so is reason enough for Americans to suspect that he is hiding something.

Original Mike said...

I don't think garage has an answer for us, gentlemen.

DADvocate said...

Birth to an alien father,..."

Just further proof that Earth Girls Are Easy.

Florida said...

" ...his refusal to do so is reason enough for Americans to suspect that he is hiding something."

As I said earlier though, it's a moot point. The Electoral College would never elect Barack Obama again because now they know.

garage mahal said...

Now, a Democrat governor has said it would be produced and since has admitted it can't be found.

"Our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives written down," Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser.

"What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case," he told the paper.


I'm sure after it is produced, we will hear "Well why did it take so long! I'm still not satisfied!"

n said...

Now here's a wacko conspiriacy for you from the pages of the Arena Forum.

"Keith Olbermann is right. And it's not just Palin and Beck. The Republicans who benefited from violent political confrontations and cross-hair language, who did not speak out and use their influence forcefully against it, bear full responsibility. Whatever John Boehner now says, he bears responsibility.

The tea party leaders gave explicit instructions on how to angrily disrupt public political meetings. Tea party rallies not only displayed violent signs, but rally leaders did not discourage them, and hence tacitly approved them.

As conservatives like to say, you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

This was tea party murder.

We should not shrink from calling it that."....Jan 8th

George Lackoff, Brilliant Communication Czar of Democrat Pary and UC Berkley

The wacko Left feels no shame

Original Mike said...

I still don't understand what "it" is. Please explain.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Mick,

Just out of curiosity, which was the first legitimate US President? -- i.e., the first one born in the US to parents who were citizens of the US at the time of his birth? Obviously we can nix the first half dozen or so. (And it depends whether you consider the United States to date from the Declaration of Independence, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution.)

Looks to me like it was either Martin Van Buren or John Tyler. What say you?

wv: vrialyac. Sounds like a prescription emetic.

Gene said...

garage mahal: Andrew Sullivan is looking for Trig Palin's birth certificate too. Why won't Sarah Palin just produce it and end this controversy?

Trig is a handicapped child who could never run for any public office, let alone the presidency. I don't see why mentally handicapped private citizens who are not looking to be elected to some office should have to justify their existence to anyone.

On the other hand, if you had argued that Sarah Palin, when and if she ever declares her candidacy for the Republic nomination, should produce her original birth certificate, I'd say, great idea. Furthermore, when she does it it she should hold it aloft, hand out photocopies, announce how proud she is of everything on it, and point out that unlike some other candidates she has never spent a fortune in legal fees trying to keep her birth certificate secret.

Marc said...

Strong analysis, Mick, whatever the underlying result turns out to be. I'm not aware that "natural born citizen" has been interpreted as specifically anywhere else as you propose here -- i.e., having 2 citizen parents and being born on US soil. Has it?

I seem to recall that the phrase is unique to Art. 2, sec. 1, and therefore obviously no one has had an occassion to subject that clause to judicial scrutiny. Yet.

Kind of like "high crimes and misdemeanors" in A2S4. Much bantered about, but rarely subjected to interpretation.

Just curious if you are using your own definition, which would tend to undermine your argument.

BEK477 said...

A POTUS faux citizenship status should be sufficient grouds for impeachment and trial.

The citizenship requirement that a POTUS be a native born citizen should be mandatory and unchallengeable. If OBAMA is a non-native then he should be impeached.
His avoiding the resolution of this issue sends a message toi me that he is hidding some unpleasant fact.

Perhaps it is that he was listed as a Muslim on the B.O.C. or that he was born overseas.

Or the issue is that he has claimed foriegn citizenship (Kenya or Indonesia) on prior occassions (College application papers).

He sends the message that he has something to hide.

Joaquin said...

My birth certificate is from Cuba 1956. You should see that thing! It's handwritten! But we were very careful to get it out and I can get my hands on it inside of an hour.
I think O is using this as a ploy to keep the "loonie Birthers" in a tizzy and will wip it out only when necessary.
"See, here it is. Now don't you all look silly?!"

Florida said...

Garage Mahal Claimed: "It has been produced."

Then link us to it, Garage.

Link us to the long-form Hawaiian birth certificate (or a reasonable facscimile of it) that you claim has been produced.

The way the internet works is this: If you make a dubious claim that such a document exists, you have to link to the source document. That way, nobody can question your veracity.

Link ... or I question your veracity.

Big Mike said...

@Michael K, I stand corrected, sir.

garage mahal said...

Barack Obama cannot produce a birth certificate. I believe that if he could produce one, it would have been produced by now.

He produced it, Birther. You're left with claiming it was a fake, fruity-pebbles. You're also left with the awesome theory his grandparents sent out fake birth announcements to two Hawaii newspapers in 1961. Like I said, if you believe all this you are a fruitcake. Do you any awesome Truther theories for us too?

Rich B said...

The 14th amendment states that all laws apply equally to all citizens, natural born or naturalized. The Constitution, in its requirements for the President states that: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Note that those who were not natural born citizens but became one when the Constitution was ratified were eligible (such as George Washington). The 14th amendment does not amend the requirements for the Presidency.

Marc said...

Michelle, A2S1 goes on to "legitimize," as you put it, the presidency of any non-natural-born-citizen who was a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." So you probably need to reword your question or withdraw it.

Original Mike said...

@Florida: I assume garage is referring to the short form. At least I assume that's what the thing is that is available on the web.

My question is, what was Abercrombie looking for? I really don't understand.

k said...

At the risk of garnering more attention than I really want from Mick, let me just state that I was born in the U.S. to a U.S.-born Mom and a British subject Dad. I am and always have been an American citizen, and have the passport to prove it.

I have two siblings who were born after me, outside the U.S. to the same parents. They are also U.S. citizens by virtue of my mom's citizenship, and - unlike my dad - they never had to undergo a special naturalization process. But we have always joked, correctly, I believe, that they could never be president owing to their foreign birth.

Your statement about both parents having to be U.S. born is just plain wrong.

Florida said...

"He produced it, Birther. You're left with claiming it was a fake, fruity-pebbles."

Then link us to it Garage, so we can stop questioning your veracity. So you can be proven correct.

Should be easy for you to provide a link to it, since you claim it has been produced.

That's a reasonable request.

Show us.

Link us to the long-form Hawaiian certificate of live birth that you claim exists and that you claim has been produced.

Link.

Coketown said...

Maybe they can't find his birth certificate because he's black and therefore had a birf certificate.

Florida said...

GarageMahal at 1:24pm: "It has been produced."

GarageMahall at 2:20pm: "I'm sure after it is produced, we will hear "Well why did it take so long! I'm still not satisfied!"

Well, Garage, which is it? You contradicted yourself in the space of a half hour - and you wonder why this issue won't die.

It's because you can't keep your lies straight, dude.

Jim_J said...

Maybe they can't find his birth certificate because he's black and therefore had a birf certificate.

Comedy is hard.

Almost Ali said...

By virtue of Obama's inability to produce valid proof, the "birther" issue has escalated from the curiously amusing to the downright dangerous, in that the legitimacy of government is now in question.

And in looking around the world, we now see how a simple straw breaks the camel's back.

Florida said...

"I assume garage is referring to the short form."

Yea, probably. But the "short-form" document was produced in the present day - allegedly taking its data from a long-form certificate kept on file in Hawaii.

That is the crux of the issue.

We want to see our public records. That we paid for.

Barack Obaam wants to hide these records for some reason.

But they are not his records to hide.

Those records belong to us: The people.

Mick said...

CachorroQuente said...

"So, is Mick really sans clue or is he trolling? I guess in some cases it is impossible to tell.

The 14th amendment is really quite clear and unambiguous and there has never been within the United States any determination that a U.S. citizen as a result of birth is anything but a natural-born citizen. There is no authority whatsoever for the contention that there is a difference in the citizenship statuses of people born within the United States of two citizen parents and those born of one citizen and one non-citizen. There is also no difference between the citizenship status of those born dual citizens and those born with only US citizenship."



And you would be wrong. Only natural born Citizens are eligible to be POTUS. The 14th Amendment is about who is a citizen (one subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and no other foreign power), not who is eligible to be POTUS. NOTHING in the Congressional Globe gives ANY hint whatsoever that they were meaning to amend A2S1C5.
As a matter of fact they repeated, IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (Globe) that natural born Citizens are born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US and NO OTHER FOREIGN POWER (John Bingham).
Also as a matter of FACT, the dicta of Minor v. Happersett (1974) and repeated verbatum in Wong Kim Ark (1898), both cases AFTER the 14A (1866), said that the definition is NOT IN THE US COSTITUTION, and that one must "look elsewhere" (Vattel's "Law of Nations")
Here:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. "

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"even if he [Obama] weren't, [a citizen] it should be rendered moot by the fact that he was elected"

So then, by this reasoning if I am able to rob a bank and get away with it, the crime should be rendered moot because I was sucessful in perpetrating my crime?!?!??

Note: I'm not saying that Obama is or is not a legal citizen.

I'm just amazed at the idea that it is no big deal because he "won".

We know it doesn't seem to anyone to be any big deal that Obama broke the rules and allowed millions of dollars of foreign and untraceable internet campaign contributions. BFD. He got away with it. Nothing to see here.....move along.

Florida said...

" ... in that the legitimacy of government is now in question. And in looking around the world, we now see how a simple straw breaks the camel's back."

Exactly.

Barack Obama could defuse this situation by releasing the records. His obstinance is dangerous and unnecessary and could lead the United States citizenry to question the legitimacy of their government.

It's irresponsible of him to refuse to release public records that belong to the people.

Look what they did with a few matches and some rags in Tunisia and now in Egypt.

Governments can fall.

Easily.

And yet despite this clear and present danger, Barack Obama obstinently and puckishly refuses a simple request; something you or I had to do to get our licenses and open our bank accounts or get our passports.

We had to PROVE we are Americans.

JAL said...

@1jpb Is it possible the passports expire?

Nah.


You are too funny! Of course they expire. What's really weird is some people save the old ones. Isn't that a hoot!

I have no idea why the Issued date was redacted on Obama's passport. It's a strictly who cares thing.

Any thoughts?

Any idea about what passport he went to Pahkistahn with?

That would be interesting trivia.

Original Mike said...

"But the "short-form" document was produced in the present day - allegedly taking its data from a long-form certificate kept on file in Hawaii."

Can anybody else confirm this? The thing on the internet was produced in the present day?

Mick said...

k said...

" At the risk of garnering more attention than I really want from Mick, let me just state that I was born in the U.S. to a U.S.-born Mom and a British subject Dad. I am and always have been an American citizen, and have the passport to prove it.

I have two siblings who were born after me, outside the U.S. to the same parents. They are also U.S. citizens by virtue of my mom's citizenship, and - unlike my dad - they never had to undergo a special naturalization process. But we have always joked, correctly, I believe, that they could never be president owing to their foreign birth.

Your statement about both parents having to be U.S. born is just plain wrong."



Right, just like Obama. Governess by ancedote. First you mistate what I have said. The parents need not be US BORN, just at least naturalized US Citizens when the child is born. There is nothing racist or nativist about it. It is a security measure.
Second, AGAIN, the requirement of A2S1C5 is NATURAL BORN, i.e born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents, not "Citizen". So no, you nor your siblings are natural born Citizens (a condition of birth), and not eligible for POTUS.

Florida said...

" ... even if he [Obama] weren't, [a citizen] it should be rendered moot by the fact that he was elected ... "

This might be true (debateable) but only insofar as he does not attempt to stand for re-election.

Once he attempts to stand for re-election, it would no longer be moot.

It would become again a valid, reasonable issue that Electoral College voters could use to deny him their votes.

And that is preicesly what they should do. If chosen to be an Elector in my state, that's what I would pledge to do.

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

Barack Obama cannot produce a birth certificate. I believe that if he could produce one, it would have been produced by now.

He produced it, Birther.


He never did anything of the kind. He has never gone near it - at least since the issue was raised.

I remember some fuzzy thing on Kos about a year or so ago, but that was indecipherable, IIRC.

So, in a way, I'm on garage's side. Let The Zero, at his next Sputnik moment, produce his birth cert for all to see.

PS I note some people are in doubt about Lurch's naval records. James Taranto kept a running count for over a year after they were promised for public release. As far as I know, they are in the same Limbo as the aforementioned document and Jimmy Hoffa's funeral plot.

Shanna said...

Andrew Sullivan is looking for Trig Palin's birth certificate too. Why won't Sarah Palin just produce it and end this controversy?

Because Trig Palin isn’t running for President? Also, he’s a baby. And Andy’s crazy. These are all valid reasons.

I think conservatives should all stop talking about this issue, because Democrats will just use it to distract from the real issues.

But the reason it won't die is that we have democratic governors of alaska popping up in the paper saying they can't find it. And the media is feeding it to try to make everybody look crazy. If the Obama's wanted it to die they would simply produce the form. They dont' want it to die, so we should make it die by stopping to talk about it.

My position, as always, is that the guy's mom was an American and so is. That fact is disputed nowhere (and is born out by the fact that Obama looks almost exactly like his grandfather, except for the skin color).

Phil 3:14 said...

re the Politico discussion: It seemed there was a preponderance of Democrats in that discussion.

One of them was a Democratic state legislator from AZ. His response was predictable.

One benefit of the linked discussion was that it enlightened me to the "Birther Bill" passed by the AZ House last year. (And I thought I had kept up on all of the "important" AZ legislative activities.)

Garage you suggest it is the responsibility of the Republicans to reign and shut down the birthers. I'm not sure how exactly they do that but maybe this helps (from the AZ Republic). Note the second to the last sentence

So-called "birther" legislation aimed at President Barack Obama has been reintroduced at the Arizona Legislature.

A House bill would prohibit placing presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the state's ballot unless they submit specified documentation of their U.S. birth and other constitutional requirements.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's birth there, but so-called "birthers" contend Obama was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.

The House narrowly passed a version of the bill in 2010 but it died in the Senate without a vote.

This year's bill has not yet been assigned to a committee for a possible hearing. It has 41-co-sponsors, up from 40 last year.

CachorroQuente said...

Ok, Baby Boy, let's start with this one:

Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother on US soil requires NATURALIZATION by election of residence at the age of majority.

Go ahead and cite any authority at all for that. There is no process by which American born citizens get naturalized.

And the reason that Article 2 allows for someone to become president who was not natural-born but a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution is because anyone born prior to the establishment of the US was not a natural-born citizen. If not for the exemption, nobody would have met the qualifications for president. Van Buren was the first natural-born citizen to serve as president, Tyler the first born after the adoption of the Constitution.

For anyone interested in a rather technical legal discussion of issues related to natural-born citizenship, look in the Volokh archives from 2008. Some pretty good stuff, even for non-lawyers such as I.

Mick said...

Florida said,


"We had to PROVE we are Americans."



The requirement of A2S1C5 is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, not "American, not American Citizen, not US Citizen, not bona fide citizen.

Marc said...

Interesting. Although the Constitution is silent on the definition, 8 U.S.C. s. 1401 identifies the following as people who are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth":

Anyone born inside the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof";

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe;

Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.;

Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national;

Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year;

Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21;

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time); and

A person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

So are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" the same things as "natural born citizens"? If so, is the birth certificate still relevant to the analysis? Mick, do you contend that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language is the rub here?

Florida said...

"Can anybody else confirm this? The thing on the internet was produced in the present day?"

Go to Google.

Google: obama birth certificate site:whitehouse.gov

Click on images.

Do you see the copy of his birth certificate they keep on whitehouse.gov?

DADvocate said...

These birthers are right up there with the left wing idiots that claim Bush stole the election in 2000.

Florida said...

"The requirement of A2S1C5 is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, not "American, not American Citizen, not US Citizen, not bona fide citizen."

Barack Obama claims he was born in Hawaii and could produce a long-form birth certificate if he so desired.

But he has refused to produce it.

It is he who set the standard of proof because it is he who made the claim.

Florida said...

"These birthers are right up there with the left wing idiots that claim Bush stole the election in 2000."

Why Advocate.

You don't say why they are idiots.

Is it too much to ask for a copy of his long-form birth certificate?

They asked me to produce one when I opened my checking account.

They required me to produce one when I got my passport.

Why should Obama be exempt?

Why is it nutty to think he should not be exempt?

G Joubert said...

@seven machos
Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother on US soil requires NATURALIZATION by election of residence at the age of majority.

No. It does not.


I agree with that. But if you change the facts a skosh and say, "Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother in the father's country of origin (i.e., Kenya) requires NATURALIZATION", that would be accurate, would it not?

I haven't kept up on this whole thing so much, but as far as I know there is NO evidence that Ann Dunham traveled to Kenya (or any other country) to deliver the little baby Barack. Me, I can't imagine why she would have done that in 1961. But on the other hand she seems to have been a romantic and quixotic enough young woman to have done that

And this is the holy grail being chased by many if not most birthers.

Mick said...

CachorroQuente said...

" Ok, Baby Boy, let's start with this one:

Birth to an alien father, married to an American Citizen mother on US soil requires NATURALIZATION by election of residence at the age of majority.

Go ahead and cite any authority at all for that. There is no process by which American born citizens get naturalized.

And the reason that Article 2 allows for someone to become president who was not natural-born but a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution is because anyone born prior to the establishment of the US was not a natural-born citizen. If not for the exemption, nobody would have met the qualifications for president. Van Buren was the first natural-born citizen to serve as president, Tyler the first born after the adoption of the Constitution.

For anyone interested in a rather technical legal discussion of issues related to natural-born citizenship, look in the Volokh archives from 2008. Some pretty good stuff, even for non-lawyers such as I."



The Conspirators at VC also are clueless (or told to shut up), and if you look up the infamous "Fraud" threads there, they are started by my comments.
Those born of 1 alien and one US Citizen on US soil (or foreign soil) are naturalized by USC 8 S1401 PASSIVELY by election of residence (no oath required) at the age of majority, or if the alien parent is naturalized during the child's minority. Until then the country of jurisdiction is determined by place of residence. That split possibility of Jurisdiction over that child is what makes him not eligible as a natural born Citizen, where the child is born SOLELY WITHIN the jurisdiction of the US (born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents).

Florida said...

"... is that the guy's mom was an American and so is. That fact is disputed nowhere."

I dispute that fact.

Here.

Now that there is a dispute ... prove your statement.

If you can.

garage mahal said...

I remember some fuzzy thing on Kos about a year or so ago, but that was indecipherable, IIRC.

Haha. You're so full of shit edutcher. But keep the birther thing going, I'm sure that will be a real issues winner in 2012.

Is it too much to ask for a copy of his long-form birth certificate?

yes it is too much to ask moron. Hawaii, by law, does not give out long form records.

CachorroQuente said...

And yet despite this clear and present danger, Barack Obama obstinently and puckishly refuses a simple request; something you or I had to do to get our licenses and open our bank accounts or get our passports.

There is no actual issue with Obama's place of birth. It is completely established by the Hawaii certification which states without doubt that Obama was born there and that that fact is verified by the official records of the State of Hawaii. That certification is sufficient legal proof for all other legal purposes for which proof of citizenship is required, such as when applying for a passport. I know this to be true because I have used an analogous certification from another state for all such purposes -- except for proving eligibility to be president, of course.

DADvocate said...

You don't say why they are idiots.

Is it too much to ask for a copy of his long-form birth certificate?


I'm just mocking garbaage, etc.

BTW - if you have to be a NATURAL BORN citizen, does that mean people, like my daughter, who were delivered by caesarean can't be president?

Florida said...

"I'm sure that will be a real issues winner in 2012."

I'm positive of it. I've spoken with several Electoral College electors who expect to be re-nominated. And they have told me there is a movement afoot in the College not to award delegates to any candidate who refuses to produce documentation of their US citizenship upon demand of any Elector.

So, it's going to be an issue if Barack Obama stands for re-election.

I don't think he stand. If nominiated, I don't think he'll run. But if he does ... it will be an issue.

Florida said...

No, but she can be Vice President.

Biden was aborted, but they let him in anyway.

They let anyone be Vice President.

Mick said...

Marc said,


"So are "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" the same things as "natural born citizens"? If so, is the birth certificate still relevant to the analysis? Mick, do you contend that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language is the rub here?"



NO Legal authority has said that "Citizen at birth" is the same as natural born Citizen, and also logically it just doesn't work.
The WELL KNOWN DOCUMENTED reason for the clause would be to prevent FOREIGN INFLUENCE. So how could it possibly be that children born to aliens or in a foreign country would be natural born Citizens?
Also by changing USC 8 S1401 Congress would be illegally amending A2S1C5. Get it?

The purposeful blurring of Jurisdictional Clause is certainly causing a lot of confusion. In Elk v. Wilkins (1884) it was defined as being wholly part of the American Political family, owing NO ALLEGIANCE to any other foreign power. Why o you think the Naturalization Oath makes one swear Allegiance to the US and NO OTHER FOREIGN POWER?

Seven Machos said...

I've spoken with several Electoral College electors who expect to be re-nominated.

Name one.

garage mahal said...


I'm positive of it. I've spoken with several Electoral College electors who expect to be re-nominated.


Uh huh. I bet.

Mick said...

CachorroQuente said...

"And yet despite this clear and present danger, Barack Obama obstinently and puckishly refuses a simple request; something you or I had to do to get our licenses and open our bank accounts or get our passports.

There is no actual issue with Obama's place of birth. It is completely established by the Hawaii certification which states without doubt that Obama was born there and that that fact is verified by the official records of the State of Hawaii. That certification is sufficient legal proof for all other legal purposes for which proof of citizenship is required, such as when applying for a passport. I know this to be true because I have used an analogous certification from another state for all such purposes -- except for proving eligibility to be president, of course"


The state of Hi. has said no such thing. And a pic on a website is proof OF NOTHING. Try pulling out a laptop and showing a pic of your BC when you need to. Not that it matters, since he has famously admitted British Citizenship at birth due to his Foreign father.

Trooper York said...

Thank God that the election rules for American Idol are not this complicated.

Otherwise wheelchair fiance guy wouldn't stand a chance.

I hear he already made the top 40.

Keep on rollin' dude.

Original Mike said...

"yes it is too much to ask moron. Hawaii, by law, does not give out long form records."

But surely, if the Governor asks sweetly, they'll make an exception.

Florida said...

"Name one."

So Barack Obama's hate-team can start a "Joe The Plumber" operation on them? Order up IRS audits? Start with the oppo research? Politics of personal destruction?

Not fucking likely, bub.

Fen said...

Interesting that people like garage and Revenant want to ID so many Conservatives as "closet birthers", but the fact is this is in their court.

I could give a rats tail about Garage, but this has been a pattern for Rev lately. For the last 2 years, Democrats have been marginalizing conservatives by calling our criticism 1) racist 2) violent rhetoric.

So while I don't thrown in with the birthers (because I think that train has left the station) its time we all took a stand against marginalizing them as kooks. This is one of those "first they came for the gypsies" moments.


But this pretty much sums up my view of the issue today:

"Up until a couple of weeks ago, I thought the whole thing was a lot of nonsense. I thought there was something silly on it, like his real name was Stanley Ann Dunham, Jr, and was a lot more interested in his health records and academic transcripts.

Now, I really would like to see it."

I think the reason its not being released is because, since the father is Muslim, Obama's will be the same on the cert. Not a big deal, common practice around the US, but Obama is still afraid of it being made public in these times.

Seven Machos said...

Florida -- You have never spoken to a single Electoral College Board elector.

Similarly, you aren't particularly savvy about Chicago election law, as you claimed in another thread here.

What you are is completely and totally full of shit, and probably a Moby.

Scott M said...

since he has famously admitted British Citizenship at birth due to his Foreign father.

Just another illustration of how closely I follow this issue...but when did this happen?

Seven Machos said...

Scott -- What you have to understand is that these birther people are batshit crazy. They really are. They are loons.

Althouse puts up these threads only to torment.

Mick said...

Marc said...

"Strong analysis, Mick, whatever the underlying result turns out to be. I'm not aware that "natural born citizen" has been interpreted as specifically anywhere else as you propose here -- i.e., having 2 citizen parents and being born on US soil. Has it?"


It has been defined as such in the dicta of several SCOTUS Citizenship cases, including:
The Venus
Dred Scott
Minor v. Happersett
Wong Kim Ark
Perkins v. Elg
Federalist #68
The writers of the 14th Amendment
Laurance Tribe and Ted Olsen @ Resolution 511
Michael Chertoff and Sen. Leahy @ Resolution 511

Can it be any more clear?

Mick said...

Scott M said...

"since he has famously admitted British Citizenship at birth due to his Foreign father.

Just another illustration of how closely I follow this issue...but when did this happen?"


Right here, at Fight the Smears:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”


http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Scott M said...

I've already stated I really don't care and I'm in the same stable as Fen. When it didn't look like it had legs, one way or the other, way back when it first started, it became a non-issue for me.

With Abercrombie's nonsense, though, I'm now fully interested in seeing the long-form.

Additionally, this is now a little personal for me. Mike Evans is the "celebrity journalist" that came out last week in an interview saying not only that Abercrombie, who he's been friends with forever, told him there's no long-form in their archives, but that, contrary to what he's said publically, Abercrombie was not there when Obama was born, but rather didn't see him until he was around 5 or 6.

I know Mike Evans professionally. He has been doing his schtick (a very funny guy who really does seem to know everyone) for almost twenty years on a radio station I used to work for. The Mike Evans that retracted his previous statements sounds nothing like the man I know.

I'm not drawing any conclusions other than, like Fen, now I really want to see what's on file.

Seven Machos said...

Mick -- You are wrong. There are two kinds of citizens. One group is naturalized. The other group is natural.

There are no other groups of citizens.

Everyone -- Please disabuse yourselves of the notion that a person must be born in the United States to be president. Look at the Constitution. "Natural born" does not mean and cannot be interpreted to mean "born in the United States."

DADvocate said...

Democratic Congressman Jim Moran has the answer.

“a lot of people in this country … don’t want to be governed by an African-American.”

...

Democrats, Moran said, lost for “the same reason the Civil War Happened in the United States … the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.”

...

he said, is that Obama is a black president “who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society — that’s a basic philosophical clash.”


It's all about race. Has to be. Can't be anything else.

I like the spend money part. Wants to spend money on everyone!! Money we don't have to spend, but that's a minor detail.

Roger J. said...

I find the whole birther thing surreal--I am simply not concerned with it--what I do find even more surreal is that this issue dominates a thread when there are significant events in the world unfolding that have major consequences for US foreign policy. we have a president whose provenance (thanks Andy) is a bit obscure--and at the end of the day we may be confronted with some major issues in the mid east--

I do not care about Mr Obamas papers--I do care that he needs to figure out what to do in the mid east--his measure has been taken by external forces and he has been found lacking--this birther shit is just an exercise in mental masturbation

there is some bad shit going on in the world right know and we are obcessed with provenance--we ar now all now andrew sullivans

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

" Scott -- What you have to understand is that these birther people are batshit crazy. They really are. They are loons.

Althouse puts up these threads only to torment."


You mean to torment you? I have no problem espousing TRUTH. It sets me free.

Scott M said...

Mick...how in the world does that qualify as "famously admitting"?

CachorroQuente said...

Jesus Christ on fucking rollerskates, this is insane:

The 14th Amendment is about who is a citizen (one subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and no other foreign power),
not who is eligible to be POTUS.


The 14th Amendment clarifies who is a citizen by birth, i.e. a natural-born citizen. It is well (and easily understood, and misunderstood only by a few cranks. The 14th amendment says
nothing about the jurisdiction of any foreign power but that has nothing to do with the case of Obama as he was at birth not subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign power. A principle from very early in our nation's history, and which was an important reason for the war of 1812, is that foreign powers cannot willy-nilly declare American citizens to be citizens of
those foreign powers and subject to their jurisdicttions.

Minor v Happersett had nothing to do with who is and who is not a natural-born citizen. It was about whether the vote could be denied to women who were natural born citizens. The dicta in that opinion has no more authority over any legal question than does your continuous exercise in intellectual onanism -- it means nothing to anybody about anything. Wong Kim Ark is, quite obviously in opposition to your contention as it establishes quite clearly that birth-right citizenship is established even though the parents are not US citizens. Wong Kim Ark was, in fact, eligible to be president, once he reached the required age.

As to who was considered natural-born citizen under "common law" at the time of the Constitution's adoption, go look at the articles in Volokh back in 2008. They are easy to find and are written by people who actually know what they are talking about.

Seven Machos said...

Roger -- If Obama figures out what to do about the Middle East, he'll be the greatest president in the history of the United States.

Meanwhile, we'll have to muddle through somehow.

Seven Machos said...

Scott -- You are already coming around. Good.

Scott M said...

Wrong.

I don't really care outside what happened to Mike between last week and this week.

BJM said...

@Mick

No matter if he was born in the Oval office, Obama cannot be a natural born Citizen

You sir, are full of shit.

The term "natural born" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means in this context. It means the child must be the biological progeny of a US parent, either father or mother. Where the actual delivery takes places is of no consequence.

Dept of State requires that to register a baby born in a foreign country as a US citizen the parents must take the baby to the US consulate, along with,
a)an original copy of the baby’s birth certificate, b)an original copy of the parent’s certificate of marriage, c) parent’s passports
and d)pay the fee in USD.

This happens every day around the world.

The only way his place of birth could be an issue is if his mother was a naturalized citizen, which we know she was not; or renounced her citizenship and took up another, then he would need to be born on US soil/territory.

I don't recall that there has ever been a report that his mother renounced her citizenship, so that's a moot point.

When I applied for my first passport in the 60's my mother couldn't find the original "long form" with my footprints, and I received a certified mimeograph copy from the county clerk's office.

However a few years later when my sister applied for a copy they had switched to microfiche records and her long form was converted to the short version with the clerk's seal.

btw- my "long form" was hand written, how easy would that be to alter?

My maternal grandfather's birth certificate was a page in the family Bible with the time, date, footprints and the midwife's signature. The vicar's signature was appended at his baptism.

As he was born on a remote farm the only official record was the church baptism records. His people didn't get into town much and probably never to the county seat. So those two documents were his birth records. He had to lug the Bible into this or that govt office from time to time, but it was recognized as a genuine birth certificate by every govt agency that requested same, including SS and Dept of State.

So what we're arguing over is a red herring designed to divert us from discussing the dire job situation or health care FUBAR.

Rialby said...

There's an original long form Hawaiian birth certificate from the early 60s floating around on the net. No "religion" box exists.

Florida said...

"I do not care about Mr Obamas papers ..."

Most don't, really. We know he's still going to be president regardless of whether he produces his papers or not.

The question posed was "why does this issue not die."

And the answer is becaue Barack Obama refuses to do what you or I would be required to do merely to get a driver's license.

Much less to get to decide the fate of US policy vis-a-vis continuing to prop up a dictator in Egypt.

traditionalguy said...

Lawyers would say that the burden of proof is upon the birthers since Obama has shown a short form certificate. But what Gov. Abercrombie has undertaken recently has shifted the burden of proof to the State of Hawaii...for a few days at least... until he shifted it back by pleading a law against disclosure has tied his hands. Then the radio interview came that quoted Abercrombie as saying that there is NO record of Obama's birth in Hawaii, and that shifted the burden again...until the man who made that radio statement said he "Missspoke" shifting the burden back where all of this started. Whiplash city. No wonder we want an answer even if we are ridiculed for asking. Again, ID all possible living Docs and nurses and Hospital personnel on duty that 48 hours around the DOB and ask them what they remember. or has Abercrombie already done that?

Scott M said...

until the man who made that radio statement said he "Missspoke" shifting the burden back where all of this started.

See my comment about this. There's something not quite right about it. Listen to the audio, by the way. He went into some fairly decent detail for having "misspoke".

Sofa King said...

"That certification is sufficient legal proof for all other legal purposes for which proof of citizenship is required, such as when applying for a passport."

Perhaps this goes to the heart of the nature of the disagreement: It is clearly sufficient *legal* proof, but it is not clearly sufficient *circumstantial* proof. Simply because the law declares something sufficient by fiat for its own purposes, does not mean it is automatically sufficient to prove anything beyond that.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 319   Newer› Newest»