Main Menu

Is President Obama a British Citizen?

obamaflagAccording to a new article at nObama attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog, he is. The article, Obama, the President of the U. S., Is Also Currently a British citizen advances the legal theory, cobbled together from bits and pieces of British and Kenyan law, that President Obama, who is acknowledged to have had a claim to British citizenship at birth, still retains that citizenship.

Let’s start this discussion at President Obama’s own campaign website, FightThe Smears.com, citing FactCheck.org:

britlion“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.”

The FactCheck.org article goes on to say:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (2). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

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.

Flag of Kenya

Flag of Kenya

I start with the conclusion from the Obama campaign and FactCheck.org because they employ careful researchers, and are expected to get things right. Based on this analysis, we may conclude that President Obama is no longer a citizen of Kenya.

But FactCheck.org leaves a gap in the argument. It says “Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived,” but it doesn’t say why. In to this small gap rides Mario Apuzzo with the assertion that Obama never lost his British citizenship at Kenyan independence.

Several British colonies in Africa became independent in the 1960′s. The transition was accomplished through paired legislation: Independence Acts in Britain and Constitutions in the former colonies. In these acts when citizenship was defined in the new country, British citizenship ended for citizens of the new country.

1. The position before 1983

1.1 When a former British colony, associated state, protectorate etc, achieved independence within the Commonwealth, and made its own citizenship laws, a corresponding Independence Act was passed in the United Kingdom to deal with the consequences, e.g.:
• To include the name of the newly independent country in s.1(3) of the BNA 1948; and, if necessary
• To remove it from the list of protectorates etc in the current British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order; and
• To withdraw citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from certain people who became citizens of the new country

Source: British Home Office

The act for Kenya was the Kenya Independence Act (1963). Unfortunate for this analysis, the section of the Act dealing with citizenship was repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981, and all online copies of the Kenya Act accessible to me have the original sections stricken. However, we can infer the contents of the Act from text written about it. Here we have an authoritative source, a legal document from the European Court of Justice.

2.6 … The Kenya Independence Act, passed by the British Parliament, removed UK and Colonies citizenship only from a person who ‘on the appointed day [the date of independence] ….becomes a citizen of Kenya’. This ensured that at the date of independence a person born in Kenya would either acquire Kenyan nationality, or would retain UK and Colonies citizenship. …

2.7 The joint provisions of Kenyan and UK law thus envisaged that all those who had previously been UK and Colonies citizens would either acquire Kenyan nationality, or would retain UK and Colonies citizenship…

There is also this record of Parliamentary debate:

Mr. David Steel: … In 1963, we were negotiating independence for Kenya. The Government of the day decided to give the Asian community a choice. They said, “For two years, you will have an option; you can either opt to become a citizen of Kenya or you can retain your British nationality status, with all the rights which that involves”. If it was the intention of the right hon. Member for Streatham to withdraw the right of free entry from the Asian, African and the European populations–”the African population were automatically Kenya citizens–”it should have been made clear beyond doubt in the 1963 Act that these rights of citizenship were being withdrawn.

We see through the FactCheck.org analysis that Barack Obama did become a citizen of Kenya on the date of independence, and hence on that date he lost his Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). So therefore, on 12th December, 1963, Barack Obama ceased to be a British citizen.

It would be convenient to end the story at this point; however, the Kenya Independence Act section referenced above was, as I said earlier, repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981. So while Obama certainly lost his CUKC citizenship in 1963, did he get it back in 1981 (while he was traveling in Pakistan on his US passport)?

The relevant section of the British Nationality Act of 1981 is:

35. Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.

A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever.

[Section 31 deals with citizens if Ireland.]

Update

Also please review additional substantive argument of the issue in the comments that follow, regarding the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1981 repeals the section of the British Nationality Act of 1948 under with Obama gained British citizenship in the first place.

So in conclusion, Barack Obama is not a citizen of Kenya nor of Britain.

Update

A generous contributor has provided a link to the original text of the Kenya Independence Act (1963). The operative section says:

(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

Update

That’s all fine, but it turns out that there is another kind of British Citizenship that Obama retained for a few more years, “Commonwealth citizenship.” Read the continuing saga in this article:

Donofrio v FactCheck.org

Print Friendly

, , , , , , ,

254 Responses to Is President Obama a British Citizen?

  1. avatar
    Bob April 7, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    Apuzzo now claims Obama is currently a British citizen”.

    His reading of British citizenship law is, to be kind, incomplete.

  2. avatar
    kimba April 7, 2009 at 12:40 pm #

    It is fascinating how people like Apuzzo, Donofrio, Orly who keep this eligibility issue alive are all skilled at bringing forward “new” theories just as the old ones are debunked. “Both parents have to be citizens” not working out for you? How’s about “he’s really a British citizen” then? They are like cult leaders who have a knack for re-kindling belief when they sense the members are becoming jaded or doubtful. Or maybe more like snakeoil salesmen. I keep wondering what’s in it for them and come back to two: money and publicity.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 7, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Bob, if you have some elaboration, I’d be grateful to hear it.

    I replied at Apuzzo’s blog:

    I fail to see the relevance of any of this to Obama’s eligibility to be President.

    We knew before the election that Obama was born with British Citizenship. Whether he retains it makes no difference. The Supreme Court has already decided that dual citizenship in and of itself does not erase natural born citizenship in the US (Perkins v Elg).

  4. avatar
    Bob April 7, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    The crux of Apuzzo’s argument is that Obama somehow retained his British citizenship after Kenya gained its independence (and Obama thus also gained Kenyan citizenship). (I use the term “British citizenship” very loosely here.)

    Even though the Kenyan Constitution says British citizens born in Kenya (and their descendants) “shall become” Kenyans citizens, Apuzzo believes that Britain did not also revoke the citizenship of these new Kenyan citizens. Yet there’s absolutely no analysis of British act granting Kenya its independence (and no discussion more generally about Britain’s divestment of it colonies — and entire books have been written about this subject). And there’s only a passing reference to British Nationality Act of 1981, which was an attempt to clean up such citizenship issues.

    Even the most cursory glances at secondary sources about Kenya’s independence and post-colonial Britain makes it clear there was not the dual-citizenship trap Apuzzo describes. In post-independence Kenya, for example, Africans in Kenya became Kenyan citizens; end of discussion. It was the Asians (and also some Europeans) in Kenya who had citizenship issues (especially the Asians, as neither Kenya nor Britain wanted them).

    It is really rather amusing that a heretofore unknown litigator in New Jersey can make such grand and previously unnoticed pronouncements about Kenyan (and British) citizenship laws. And, as you noted, none of this is relevant to the natural-born citizenship issue, as the concept that dual citizenship precludes natural-born citizenship is, shall we say, a minority view.

  5. avatar
    Bob April 8, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    Yet there’s absolutely no analysis of British act granting Kenya its independence

    Some links.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 8, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    Thanks. I got as far as the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, but sections 2,3 discussing (I assume) citizenship were missing (repealed by the Immigration Act of 1981 — hope I’m getting all of this right from memory), and the debate saying that the Nationality act of 1965 was important. Then, darnit, I had to go to work.

  7. avatar
    Bob April 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    I couldn’t find the critical sections of the Kenya Independence Act (the parts later repealed by the BNA of 1981) online, which is why the House of Lords debate is useful: It plainly shows that the Independence Act contemplated stripping CUKC [citizen of the UK & colonies] status for those granted Kenyan citizenship (and, even as Apuzzo concedes, Obama Sr. and Jr. were Kenyan citizens). Together, they disprove Apuzzo’s assertion that somehow Obama was both a Kenyan citizen and a CUKC.

    Apuzzo can also be rather imprecise by making references to Obama allegedly being a British “national” or “citizen.” Britain’s citizenship rules are more complex than America’s; there is no way for Obama to be a British citizen, and it is rather sloppy of Apuzzo not to state with precision what he believes Obama’s exact status would be.

    The handwaiving may look impressive, but really isn’t.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    The title of Apuzzo’s article, “Obama, the President of the U. S., Is Also Currently a British citizen” reminds me of another article, titled “How a British Subject became President of the United States”. That article was not about Obama, but about Chester A. Arthur, and was written in 1884.

  9. avatar
    GeorgetownJD April 9, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    Dr. C:

    Excellent research. Your construction of Kenyan citizenship in connection with the grant of independence also finds support in “Defining British Citizenship,” by Rieko Karatani. (Portions of this book can be previewed at http://books.google.com/books?id=BvEnv2fjN-gC&pg=RA1-PA158&lpg=RA1-PA158&dq=britisha+nationality+act+kenya&source=bl&ots=NuP24SpKvz&sig=Dp55o6lZECB0Zj5qJRqeJD377Ys&hl=en&ei=6nzdSYmuDp7WlQfoj6H-DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PRA1-PA155,M1).

    Had Obama Sr. been of European or Asian origin, he would have retained his CUKC citizenship status unless he affirmatively made application within a two-year grace period to elect Kenyan citizenship and renounce his British citizenship. See id. at 157-58. However, as an Kenyan of African origin, Obama Sr. automatically became a citizen of the newly-formed nation and his CUKC nationality terminated. As the new Kenyan citizenship was granted chiefly by birth or descent, Obama Jr. was eligible to claim his Kenyan citizenship through descent by his 21st birthday (which we know did not occur).

  10. avatar
    myson April 9, 2009 at 4:02 am #

    You’re all saying i cant go get my british citizenship by way of descent (before my pop was a british citizen as my country was under british rule, he was even in England the day Nigeria got independence) because my country later got independence !!!!! Damn

    I wonder why we wanted independence if we’re still going to be British citizens anyway no matter what we do (according to Mario) ?

    So i have 2 go back to applying for visa to visit the US & even the UK !!! Mario you just got my hopes up unnecessarily, you such a bad researcher !!

  11. avatar
    Bob April 9, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    Like the presentation.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    Thanks, Bob. I’m rather proud of this article myself.

  13. avatar
    Bob Weber April 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    A segment of the population has a habit of taking some small part of a law or document, stripping it of its context, and reading big things into it that just aren’t there. Usually for some purely ad hoc purpose. This is known as pettifoggery. A few years ago, some of these people looked at the references in the U.S. Constitution to “citizens of a state” and decided that there was such a thing as “State Citizenship” distinct from U.S. citizenship, rather than merely being a subset of U.S. citizenship. A sure-fire, can’t-miss way of not paying U.S. income taxes! Needless to say, it did not end well for people who tried this tactic.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    I have some sympathy for those who try to read some of these cases. They’re not something (at least for the untrained eye such as mine) that can be digested quickly. I remember reading some Lutheran confessional writings, where the argument would go on for 20 pages and at the very end would be the words “These and all the other teachings of the xxxxxxx we do fully and completely reject.” It would be so easy to take some of that out of context by mistake. I can’t excuse a lawyer, though. Phil Berg’s mangling of Indonesian citizenship law is an example, and Mario Apuzzo really should have read more from the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which he cites) before publishing his erroneous conclusions.

  15. avatar
    TRUTH April 9, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Dr, out of curiosity just how did the Supreme Court decide that? Was it an actual decision they made or was it because they did nothing at all is what determines they decided? I’m not being sarcastic, I don’t know the answer to that.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Perkins v. Elg

    Elg was born in the US and taken to Sweden as a child where she acquired Swedish citizenship through a provision of Swedish law. While the facts of the case state that Elg was born of naturalized US Citizen parents (who subsequently renounced their citizenship), the court’s citations of law talk about those born of alien parents.

    The court decided (1) that Elg was born a US citizen (Civil rights act of 1866 and 14th Amendment) because she was born in the United States. The court said: “As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, [that] citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. ” There being no such treaty or congressional enactment, and given that she did not make any voluntary action that deprived her of US citizenship, she remained a citizen.

    Now as to the reason the court called her a “natural born citizen”, no explanation is given. It is almost an aside. I can only presume that the court understood (as I do) that “natural born citizen” applies to anyone born in the United States (and PERHAPS to anyone born a citizen by statute such as to US Citizens abroad). The court’s exact words were:

    “But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship. “

    I would infer quite a lot from the case, but at the minimum, someone who at some point in their life had dual citizenship can still be a natural born citizen of the United States. The circumstances of Elg’s birth do not match Obama’s, so we cannot directly apply the decision to him without some steps of argument.

    If the case link above doesn’t work (that site seems to be having problems today), use thos one:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 9, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    Posting on Apuzzo’s blog is rather frustrating because one never knows when or if a comment will be approved. It’s hard to have back and forth under such circumstances.

  18. avatar
    Bob April 9, 2009 at 11:24 pm #

    A commenter over there states (but does not explain why) the BNA of 1981 does not apply. (I infer he thinks the BNA of 1948 solely controls because it was in effect when Obama was born, and cannot never be undone.)

    I think you are best served by just posting a link to this article on Apuzzo’s blog.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2009 at 8:33 am #

    I posted a link. It may or may not be approved and made visible to the public.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    Do you have any access to a copy of the Kenya Independence Act (1963) that has the original Sections 2 and 3 intact?

  21. avatar
    Gordon April 10, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    Doc, I have stopped posting on any right wing blogs. Their frustration is so deep, they generally bounce you. More than one birther, blogger on Team Sarah got so frustrated with me that they would scrub my comments and leave his responses to them. It looked too silly.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    This has happened to me on Orly’s site. Apuzzo allows an initial comment, then a flood of “spin, misinformation, ignorant…” replies and refuses to publish responses to the criticism. It’s quite a game since it gives the illusion that they allow opposing views that are fully rebuffed.

    Love that new word, Pettifoggery.

  23. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 10, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    I call it pseudolaw. They use bits and pieces of legal terminology combined with cherry-picked quotes from various authorities — sometimes the complete opposite of the actual holding of the case — and with complete disregard for the normal hierarchy of authority and precedent value. It sounds plausible to people without legal training, but it won’t survive even rudimentary analysis.

  24. avatar
    awe_and_shock April 11, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    Ok, which of you messed with http://defendourfreedoms.us/ ????
    Orly’s blog is getting routed to GoDaddy. I need my morning this biatch is crazy fix. Please stop messing with this patriot!

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    I was in church contemplating my mortality at the time. It wasn’t me.

    The story is that Orly has had a “parting of the ways” with her web host over false claims Orly made in the past (and refused to retract) that her site had been hacked and sabotaged (when it really hadn’t). The site is being rebuilt somewhere else.

    See:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2226843/posts

  26. avatar
    Hitandrun April 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Expelliarmus is exactly right.
    The NBC argument against Mr Obama’s Constitutional eligibility is completely without legal basis and merely demonstrates the depths the Nobot ringmasters are willing to plumb to mislead their constituents.

    Hitandrun

  27. avatar
    richCares April 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    I went to that freerepublic link and found these comments before they caught on:

    You can bet the Obamarrhoids had their hands in it
    Direct attack on freedom of speech… seems to be right in line with the ONE’s mission.
    What’s next? Am I going to get “visited” by the SS for posting dissent?

    Ignorance seems to be a right wing virtue!

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    Delusions of persecution is a common characteristic of conspiracy theorists.

  29. avatar
    awe_and_shock April 12, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Notice how the “ONE’s” is capitalized. This looks like a post from Heavy.

  30. avatar
    NBC April 12, 2009 at 2:53 am #

    Apuzzo is pathetic. Especially when wrong he refuses to admit it. Quo Warranto in the wrong State, without Attorney General involvement?
    Confusing the right to petition with the right to be heard…
    And the list continues.

  31. avatar
    AppyAmerican April 12, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    This is my first time to visit this site. In reading through the information, you make the statement that PBHO traveled to Pakistan on his US passport. Will you or can you provide where you found this information pertaining to his US passport? Thanks.

  32. avatar
    myson April 12, 2009 at 10:08 am #

    I think its better to ask your question in the article that you claim made this positive assertion.
    It confuses from the issue being discussed, refer & post on the comment section then we can be sure the statement you make was actually made the way you say , its british citizenship we’re discussing here

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Hi AppyAmerican, welcome. The comment you refer to was intended to be funny. While it is the most likely scenario, there’s no direct evidence published that Barak Obama traveled on a US passport to Pakistan. In theory he could have had a Kenyan passport.

  34. avatar
    AppyAmerican April 13, 2009 at 8:14 am #

    Sorry about that. As I said, it was my first time to this site and the above question (the US passport issue) was central to other aspects of the eligibility issue and I wondered if I might have missed the posting of evidence that PBHO traveled on a US passport.

  35. avatar
    AppyAmerican April 13, 2009 at 8:18 am #

    Thank you for clearing that up. Is it just me, or does anybody else think that a lot of this information and misinformation could be cleared up and settled once and for all if only PBHO would allow access to the records? Or is this a stupid question?

  36. avatar
    Heavy April 13, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    Appy, hold on tight! Here comes the attack. You’ve asked the wrong question of the wrong crowd.

    Yes, it is that simple, but just watch the “Answers” coming from these supporters of the illegal one. It will make your head spin!

  37. avatar
    Bob April 13, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    Is it just me, or does anybody else think that a lot of this information and misinformation could be cleared up and settled once and for all if only PBHO would allow access to the records?

    A commonly asked question, that’s been answered before. (Doc, I think you should link to this entry under your FAQs.)

  38. avatar
    NBC April 13, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    What heavy and others won’t tell you is that the president has already provided access to the most important and relevant document, his COLB which is prima facie legal evidence and shows his city of birth to be Honolulu.

    Until birthers can explain away this inconvenient thruth, there is no need for President Obama to further cater to the sensitivities and conspiracies of a few.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 13, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    It’s hardly a stupid question. My opinion, as expressed in the following article, is that it wouldn’t help.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/why-doesnt-he-show-the-damn-thing/

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 13, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    The article you reference is as much an opinion as it is a fact. I think that if the vault record were shown, a bunch of people would fold up their tents and go home. However, a bunch wouldn’t; they would just shift the discussion to the college transcript, the list of law firm clients, passport records, (non existent) adoption records, and the ultimate redefinition of “natural born citizen”. And then there would be the bunch who complain about all the “damage” that was done by not releasing the record sooner.

    But that’s just my opinion. It could be that the vault record would discredit the movement so badly that no one would take them seriously any more (well OK, nobody takes them seriously now). Berg and Orly’s contributions might drop far enough that it isn’t worth their time and effort any more.

    The reason this web site exists is not to prop up Obama, but to insist that critical thinking prevail when making decisions. My position is that critical thinking suggests that the question of Obama’s eligibility to be president can be decided in the affirmative without any further documentation from the President.

  41. avatar
    Heavy April 13, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    What “Critical” thinking is involved with releasing the requested documents?

  42. avatar
    Heavy April 13, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Here it comes. I told you!

  43. avatar
    NBC April 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    Critical thinking is needed to analyze the claims made by those who object to Obama’s eligibility. By careful application of reasoning, logic and facts, it is possible, some would say trivial, to show that most of the claims lack in fact, evidence and accuracy.

    The question to release any and all documents that the Birthers believe to be relevant is not an exercise in critical thinking but rather a fishing expedition.
    Figures…

  44. avatar
    NBC April 13, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    Indeed, as I pointed out Heavy is unable to address the facts. And as such he and his few detractors have lost the battle on the level of fact, reason and logic.

    So what’s left? Empty threats and accusations…

  45. avatar
    Heavy April 13, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    …Actually, it’s an exercise in treason and those who support it are complicit.

  46. avatar
    NBC April 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    How can it be treason to support a de facto and de jure President?
    It’s only treason when evidence supports that he was not elected in a Constitutional manner.
    The argument that he is not eligible because he was not born on US soil is flawed given what we do know.
    Other arguments, when properly analyzed also fail.

  47. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo April 13, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    I want to first make it clear that under Article II what is controlling are the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth, for a would-be President must be a “natural born Citizen.” That is a status that is established at birth and not later in life. Obama has conceded that he was born also a British citizen. It is inconceivable and an affront to common sense that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed a born British citizen post-grandfather clause to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. Hence, the argument can end there. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to show that Obama also continues being a British citizen. Such a showing is important because it reveals why the Framers required that the President be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and not just a “Citizen.” It also shows why an Article II “natural born Citizen” is one that is born on U.S. soil to parents who are also U.S. citizens, for only under such birth circumstances can a future President possess the Constitutional assurance that he will not be conflicted with any other nation’s allegiances and loyalties.

    Now on the question of Obama’s current citizenship status. You do concede that at his birth in 1961, Obama became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). You also concede that at no time in his life did Obama ever renounce his British citizenship.

    You argue that Obama automatically acquired Kenyan citizenship under Article 87, Section 1 of the 1963 Constitution of Kenya on December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya became independent from Great Britain. You further argue that since he automatically acquired that citizenship, he lost his CUKC by way of Sections 2 and 3 of the Kenya Independence Act 1963 (KIA 1963).

    You do recognize that the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You then ask the question whether by such repeal, did Obama regain his CUKC “(while he was traveling in Pakistan on his U.S. passport).” (Actually, under the BNA 1981, his citizenship status would no longer be called CUKC, but rather British Overseas Citizen (BOC). Further, you provide no evidence that Obama used a U.S. passport when he travelled to Pakistan). You cite Section 35 of the BNA 1981 and argue as follows:

    “35. Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.

    A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever.

    [Section 31 deals with citizens if Ireland.]

    So in conclusion, Barack Obama is not a citizen of Kenya nor of Britain.”

    But on close analysis, we can see that Section 35 of BNA 1981 does not apply to Obama. Section 35 makes reference to Section 31 which provides:

    “Section 31 Continuance as British subjects of certain former citizens of Eire.

    (1) A person is within this subsection if immediately before 1st January 1949 he was both a citizen of Eire and a British subject.

    (2) A person within subsection (1) who immediately before commencement was a British subject by virtue of section 2 of the 1948 Act (continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects) shall as from commencement be a British subject by virtue of this subsection.

    (3) If at any time after commencement a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is within subsection (1) but is not a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on either or both of the following grounds, namely—
    (a) that he is or has been in Crown Service under the government of the United Kingdom; and (b) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any [F90 British overseas territory] , he shall as from that time be a British subject by virtue of this subsection.

    (4) A person who is a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) shall be deemed to have remained a British subject from 1st January 1949 to the time when (whether already a British subject by virtue of the said section 2 or not) he became a British subject by virtue of that subsection.”

    Section 35 does not apply to Obama, who was not “under this Act . . . a British subject.” Obama was a CUKC under the BNA 1948 and under Section 26 of the BNA 1981 would become a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) and not a British subject. Not being a British subject in any way under BNA 1981 let alone otherwise than under Section 31, Section 35 simply does not apply to Obama. With Section 35 failing to remove any CUKC (and BOC) status from Obama, there is no other provision in the BNA 1981 that does so.

    Hence, the question that you have not adequately answered is whether Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. Please note that while Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002 c.41), Sch 2 Para 1(c) repealed Section 9 of the BNA 1981. I will await your thoughtful analysis.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  48. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    Section 35 does not apply to Obama, who was not “under this Act . . . a British subject.”

    Section 35 wouldn’t apply to Obama because he wasn’t a CUKC, as you concede KIA removed Obama’s CUKC status. (The doctor was pointing out that if Obama somehow retained CUKC status, he surely lost all ties with Britain with the passage of the BNA of 1981, as CUKCs were also British subjects.

    Hence, the question that you have not adequately answered is whether Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963.

    No, that’s the question you have not adequately answered: As the KIA removed Obama’s CUKC status, how did he ever regain it? Not by the repeal contained in BNA of 1981, as that very same act would have extingished any claim to BOC, as Obama also was also a United States citizen.

    Seriously, stick to the cat ladies.

  49. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 14, 2009 at 6:20 am #

    Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits a “dual citizen” from being President. Historically, the concept of dual citizenship wasn’t even recognized or acknowledged at the time, & since Obama was born in Hawaii he is clearly a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment.

    So you can run around as many circles as you want about “British citizenship” but it is completely, totally, absolutely irrelevant to Obama’s status and qualifications to be President.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 6:54 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    At such time as you release my “thoughtful analysis” and links to the articles here I posted on your blog a week ago, I will consider resuming the discussion. Until that time I say you have already admitted that your fantasies about Obama citizenship cannot stand against free and open discussion. Your scurrilous conduct, allowing ad hominem attacks against me on your blog while deleting my defense, shows you are an unworthy opponent. I have some bad news for you; you won’t have the opportunity to censor Ms. Pascal and Mr. Marra. [These are the US Attorneys defending the United States and President Obama in Kerchner v. Obama, Mr. Apuzzo's nuisance lawsuit in the New Jersey District Court.]

    Your fantasies are already fully discredited in the main article above and others on this blog and the pettifoggery above does nothing to alter that. Indeed the argument in the main article is complete and needs no further explanation unless it is to make the obvious case that your claim Obama is “Irish” is nuts.

    By the way, I have still not seen you file an amended complaint in Kercher v. Obama deleting the lie about the travel ban to Pakistan. When were you planning to get around to that?

  51. avatar
    AppyAmerican April 14, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    With all due respect sir, that answer doesn’t hold water. I have seen posted, birth certificates that were issued to individuals who were born at about the same time as PBHO, within a month or two either side of his birth date. These actual certificates give 4 times the information as the COLB that has beed provided as being all he can get from the Hawaiian authorities. The original birth certificate can be obtained. Other people have them. He is the President of the United States and can do or get danged near anything he wants. To offer the excuse that he can’t get any more info from Hawaii is, in my opinion, preposterus.

  52. avatar
    AppyAmerican April 14, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    You’re almost correct in your statement, except for that sticky part about”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 the President”. Notice the part about natural born citizen.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    We all understand what Hawaiian Birth Certificates looked like in 1961. However, Hawaii has gone to a computer system for issuing certificates, and they only print abstract certified copies now. So the 1961 birth certificate Hawaii issues now is the COLB that Obama ordered in 2007.

    Have you ever seen a Hawaiian birth certificate issued since 2007 in the old format? I haven’t.

    But with all due respect, all the relevant information is on the COLB, so muddying the waters about what is on the old copies is what is preposterous.

  54. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 10:36 am #

    And notice it doesn’t say dual citizens can’t be natural born.

  55. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    …other than Obama may not have the time or desire to cater to your whims.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    President Obama, having been born in the United States, is a natural born citizen. Click on any of the articles in the “Citizenship” category (upper right on this page) for more information on “natural born citizen”.

  57. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    Hear hear, in addition to many procedural flaws, Apuzo also seems to be basing his arguments on at best hearsay.
    Dr Conspiracy, once again, has effectively disposed of the claims and arguments by showing the facts.
    While the facts may not be promising for Apuzo’s case, I do understand his reluctance.

  58. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    That, and Apuzzo is just plain wrong.

  59. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    Look at all you sick, twisted fools tripping over yourselves trying to defend this piece of trash. How shameful and downright unAmerican! I can’t wait until the TRUTH comes out and all you sickos will be silenced.

  60. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    Once again Heavy is ignoring that Obama’s Certification of Life Birth shows him as born in Honolulu.

    The truth has come out and it surely did silence him. All he has left is insults and name calling.

    Poor Heavy…

  61. avatar
    myson April 14, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Obama does not see a need to cater to the whims of pple who have unreasonable request esp as they cant even prove that he wasnt born in the US

  62. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    These actual certificates give 4 times the information as the COLB that has beed provided as being all he can get from the Hawaiian authorities.

    There is not much more information found on Birth Certificates than on COLB, other than the place of birth of the parents, some additional information about the hospital etc. Certainly all interesting but irrelevant information when the place of birth clearly indicates: Honolulu.

  63. avatar
    myson April 14, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    I am surprised that you honouring h with a reply, all (s)he does is throw insults which no one catches, that y he’s getting bored with supporting a losing side.
    (s)he is free to comment but i find (s)he never comments just blows steam

  64. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Oh yes, It’s an honor to be recognized by a bunch of America hating nutjobs!

  65. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    Why do you keep referimg to that bogus image? You hang your hat and what’s left of your honor on something that is questionable at best and illegal at worst.

    There have been SO many holes shot into that worthless piece of garbage it was DOA. No matter how many commie blogs claim differently.

    Now, all THE ONE has to do is come across with the GENUINE document and let justice take its course.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    It has an artistic simplicity, not like that cluttered old thing from the 60′s. I like the calming green color. It soothes me and makes me feel warm and comfortable.
    Don’t you feel it too?

  67. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    Why do you keep referimg (sic) to that bogus image? You hang your hat and what’s left of your honor on something that is questionable at best and illegal at worst.

    Probably because it is not a bogus image. Your inability to pursue facts once again becomes painfully obvious.
    Too bad…

    The document is both genuine and legally prima facie evidence.

    No wonder you are intent on denying the truth.

  68. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Haha, who is hating America here…

  69. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    I think it is just trolling to make discussing the actual topic of the thread (e.g., Apuzzo’s crazy claim of Obama’s British citizenship) impossible.

  70. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    Again, claims without proof. You can’t even put together coherent thoughts or make semi-intelligent arguments. All you do is spew what you are programmed to spew.

    Come back when you have a leg to stand on.

  71. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    What a wonderfully descriptive statement, doc. Now, put down the bong and back away slowly.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    I did have to look that up.

  73. avatar
    Patriot1776 April 14, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    None of that dual citizen stuff even matters.

    So what if some country or other conferred citizenship on a US citizen decades ago.

    Any country could declare today that every American who’s last name begins with “A” is now a citizen of their country.

    There has never been a shred of evidence Obama considered himself a citizen of any other country but the US.

    There isn’t even a whiff of evidence he knew he at one time possessed British and Kenyan citizenship until the crazies went berserk trying to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING to disqualify him from the Presidency.

    There is absolutely NOTHING in his books, interviews, interviews with friends, interviews with family, etc. that indicates he ever thought of himself as anything but an American and in fact in his books and everything else it is obvious that he and his Mother have always considered him to be an American.

  74. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    You’re kidding, right? Have you just awaken from a years long slumber? Or are you just plain stupid?

  75. avatar
    Patriot1776 April 14, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    Not only that, he needs to remove that silly adoption stuff.

    What kind of lawyer files a suit claiming all kinds of things about a person without even reading their autobiography? How stupid is that?

    From his books, it is obvious that Obama kept in contact with his natural Father and considered only Obama Sr. to be his Father, and vice-versa.

    Obama was fond of Lolo but never indicates he is in anyway his Father.

    Also, Lolo was changed by the sudden demand that he return to Indonesia and his conscription in the military. When Ann and Bar (as his Mother called him) joined him a year later, he was different and their marriage was already on shaky ground.

    Not to mention US and Indonesian laws regarding adoption and citizenship.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    Shhhhhh! Keep that a secret. Are you trying to put my web site out of business?

    Seriously though, it is really strange that Mario Apuzzo is citing Kenyan and British law to prove something about the qualifications for an American president. It is absurd on its face. Mario’s approach seems to be to keep people lost in the details so they won’t see the big picture. It’s am old magician’s trick and it can be entertaining, but no one really believes the lady was sawed in half.

  77. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    Ignore!

  78. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    Aaaaw, what’s wrong richie? Can’t stand a bit of truth? How “Liberal” of you.

  79. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    Hey y’all. Wanna see a COLB from Hawaii? Check out rob7t7.blogspot.com/2009/04-colb-1963.html

    I’ll be waiting for the attacks.

  80. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    no attacks, just Ignore!

  81. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    You’re doing such a fine job, richie. Keep up the good work!

  82. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    Apuzzo saws women in half?

    Look at this paragraph:

    “Hence, the question that you have not adequately answered is whether Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. Please note that while Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002 c.41), Sch 2 Para 1(c) repealed Section 9 of the BNA 1981.”

    The first sentence is an attempt to burden shift. It is Apuzzo claiming that Obama has some sort of British nationality, therefore the burden is on Apuzzo to demonstrate that the BNA of 1981′s repeal of KIA’s section 2 and 3 somehow revived Obama’s CUKC status that was undisputedly lost under the KIA and Kenyan Constitution.

    The second sentence is just wrong. Schedule (not “section”) 9 of the BNA of 1981 repealed sections 2 and 3 of the KIA. So the subsequent repeal of section 9 of the BNA of 1981 (by the NI&A Act of 2002) is unimportant. Smoke and mirrors!

    It really is just handwaiving.

  83. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    Great move Heavy, in the search for your truth you have found the best argument to be one of ad hominem.
    Figures.

  84. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    continue to Ignore

  85. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    Yes, a clearly altered example.
    Your point being?
    Getting a copy of the birth certificate is not going to resolve the possibility of forgery.
    Obama’s COLB is by any standard legal prima facie evidence and there is no credible evidence that it is a forgery.

    That’s the truth, just not your kind..

  86. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    heavy deserves only one response
    “Ignore”

  87. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    Why do you keep responding to me, richie? Are your parents ignoring you again?

  88. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Clearly altered? Hmmm…What makes you say that? THEY said it was real.

  89. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    You have serious emotional issues.

  90. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    just ignore!

  91. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    no sense so Ignore!

  92. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Smoking that wacky weed again? Shame on you!

  93. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    it’s good to Ignore heavy! (fun too)

  94. avatar
    Heavy April 14, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    It’s also good to say no to drugs!

  95. avatar
    richCares April 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    Reminder: Ignore heavy!

  96. avatar
    AppyAmerican April 14, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    If, as you say, there isn’t much more information on an original birth certificate, and since he has posted the COLB, why not make the original available? Why go to the trouble to keep this record unavailable as well as all the other records which would make this controversy clear up. After all, then his supporters could shout with full assurance “I told you so”. Not have that nagging little doubt in the back of your mind, you know?
    Legitimate question Dr. Con, has a marriage record for BHO, Sr and Stanley Dunham ever been posted anywhere that any of you have seen? My reason for asking is a refernce I saw elsewhere that BHO Sr. was married at the time he was in Hawaii to a Kenyan lady. Not trying to throw gas or anything, just had never seen that mentioned anywhere before.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    I have never seen a marriage license for Obama’s parents, although a divorce decree is available, listing a date of the marriage.

    It is well-established that Obama Sr. already had a wife in Kenya when President Obama was born–one more reason for him not to take Stanley Ann to Kenya!!!!!

  98. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo April 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    Hi Bob:

    I said in my previous post here which Dr. Conspiracy has chosen not to post: “Section 35 does not apply to Obama, who was not “under this Act . . . a British subject.”

    Dr. Conspiracy argued that Obama lost his CUKC under Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. Dr. Conspiracy righfully recogized however that the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963. Then he wanted to show that notwithstanding such repeal, Obama did not regain his CUKC because of Section 35 of the BNA 1981. Hence, it was Dr. Conspiracy that argued that Section 35 applied, not me. I just showed how Section 35 does not apply because Obama is not a “British subject” under BNA 1981 but rather would be a BOC. Hence, I do not understand how your point correctly connects to anything that Dr. Conspiracy said and to which I responded. You are saying that Section 35 does not apply which contradicts Dr. Conspiracy’s argument that it did apply.

    Dr. Conspiracy relied upon Section 35 of the BNA 1981 to show that Obama did not regain his CUKC, even though Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963 were repealed. We both agree that Section 35 does not apply. Hence, I repeat, “the question that you have not adequately answered is whether Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963.”

    “Seriously, stick to the cat ladies.” I am trying.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  99. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy argued that Obama lost his CUKC under Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963.

    Which is undisputed, and really is the end of the discussion.

    Dr. Conspiracy righfully recogized however that the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963.

    But Dr. Conspiracy isn’t arguing that such a repeal somehow revived Obama’s CUKC status — you are. So the burden is on you to demonstrate how Britain’s careful attempt to limit British nationality actually granted a form of British citizenship to someone who was not only a citizen of two other countries at the time, but also who had not been a CUKC for the last 18 of his 20 years.

    This would be a rather impressive feat indeed, as section 5 of the BNA 1948 (which granted CUKC status to Obama) also was repealed by the BNA 1981.

    Then he wanted to show that notwithstanding such repeal, Obama did not regain his CUKC because of Section 35 of the BNA 1981.

    It’s called “arguing in the alternative.” Dr. Conspiracy is saying, “You are wrong because of Point A. Not withstanding Point A, you are still wrong because of Point B.” Class belt-and-suspenders approach.

    So even if Dr. Conspiracy is totally wrong about Section 35, you still haven’t proved that the BNA 1981 revived Obama’s CUKC status (and then converted it into BOC status) as the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.

    Neither the British government nor Obama would concur with this claim of yours; you are literally the only one who sees it this way.

    “Seriously, stick to the cat ladies.” I am trying.

    Then file that dismissal before the government 12(b)(6)’s you.

  100. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Of course, whether or not Obama was born with multiple citizenships has no impact on him being a natural born US citizen.

  101. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo April 14, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    Hi Bob,

    You say that “[s]o even if Dr. Conspiracy is totally wrong about Section 35, you still haven’t proved that the BNA 1981 revived Obama’s CUKC status (and then converted it into BOC status) as the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.”

    We have to go about this thing one step at a time. Ok, so you now admit that Dr. Conspiracy was wrong about using Section 35 to prove that Obama’s CUKC could not have been revived by the repeal of Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963.

    I guess then what is left is the following: Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963 removed Obama’s CUKC but the BNA 1981 repealed Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963. Hence, what remains in the British law which shows that Obama does not have BOC (CUKC is converted to BOC under BNA 1981) under BNA 1981 which states at Section 26 that “[a]ny person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a [British overseas territories citizen][words substituted by British Overseas Territories Act (2002 c.8), Section 2(2)] shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen?” You do not cite to any law or section of the BNA 1981 that supports your statement that “the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.” There being no such law in existence unless you can show me that one so exists, logically, if the BNA 1981 repealed the law that took CUKC away from Obama then he regains that which was taken away. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of British Parliament in 1981 repealing Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963? If he regained his CUKC through the BNA 1981, it would be at the moment the Act went into effect. At that moment Obama would have been a citizen with CUKC immediately before commencement. Hence, Obama would then have BOC under BNA 1981.

    On the 12(b)(6) motion, I fail to see how wanting the President to show that he is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the United States Constitution and therefore eligible to be Presient fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for is not the requirement Constitutional? Will the court grant such a motion because Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii through his internet digital image posting of his COLB (not a long-form paper birth certificate examined by any competent public authority) and that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen?” Or will the court grant the motion because of some other threshold issue that does not go to the merits?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  102. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    Ok, so you now admit that Dr. Conspiracy was wrong about using Section 35 to prove that Obama’s CUKC could not have been revived by the repeal of Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963.

    Whether Dr. Conspiracy is right or wrong about section 35 is totally irrelevant.

    You do not cite to any law or section of the BNA 1981 that supports your statement that “the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.”

    Schedule 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed almost all of the BNA 1948, including, notably, section 5 of the BNA 1948, which had originally granted Obama CUKC status.

    To recap:
    1. BNA 1948 granted Obama upon his birth CUKC status.
    2. Obama lost CUKC status under KIA and Kenyan Constitution.
    3. BNA 1981 repealed the section of the BNA 1948 that had granted CUKC status to Obama.

    Otherwise, what would be the purpose of British Parliament in 1981 repealing Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963?

    As Schedule 9 indicates, the BNA 1981 systemically repealed all references to CUKC — including those contained in the KIA.

    On the 12(b)(6) motion, I fail to see how wanting the President to show that he is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the United States Constitution and therefore eligible to be Presient fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for is not the requirement Constitutional?

    That claim will be dismissed under 12(b)(1); the will be 12(b)(6)’ed.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    My blog is not moderated. Everything that is posted appears immediately without my review, except for messages the spam filter selects. Mr. Apuzzos’s comment was not among the spam.

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    Bob, thanks for cutting off the last head from the Medusa (your point 3).

    I remember in high school my math teacher “proving” that zero was equal to one. When you see a result like that, you know that there is a flaw in the reasoning. Correct reasoning doesn’t lead to absurd conclusions.

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 14, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    Whatever the applicability of Section 35, that section should have made it abundantly clear that the BNA of 1981 was attempting to prevent dual citizenship, not create more of it.

    I would think it obvious to anyone that a federal court cannot remove a sitting president. The only question remaining is exactly how long it will be before the District Court of New Jersey to explains this to Mr. Apuzzo.

  106. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    Speaking of the truth, why do you continue to ignore the fact that a prima facie legal document has been produced?

    You liberal :-)

  107. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    Good points
    1. Quo Warranto should be filed in DC
    2. Quo Warranto should be filed with Attorney General first
    3. Federal court has no jurisdiction now that President Obama was found eligible by Congress
    4. And of course, since Obama was born in the US he is a natural born US citizen, regardless of his other citizenship(s)

    It will be an educational ruling I am sure. We will hear more in 15 days when the government’s delayed response is due.

  108. avatar
    Bob April 14, 2009 at 9:16 pm #

    Also:

    1a.: Highly very unlikely the DC quo warranto statute could be used to remove POTUS (unconstitutional delegation of power);
    1b.: Only someone interested in office (i.e., Biden) would be allowed to proceed in quo warranto.

  109. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    f, as you say, there isn’t much more information on an original birth certificate, and since he has posted the COLB, why not make the original available? Why go to the trouble to keep this record unavailable as well as all the other records which would make this controversy clear up.

    Obama can at best make a copy of the original available but why? To satisfy a fake controversy? It may convince a few who were misled but there exists a larger group who is opposed to Obama for his policies, his race, his supposed Muslim faith and more.

    My reason for asking is a refernce I saw elsewhere that BHO Sr. was married at the time he was in Hawaii to a Kenyan lady. Not trying to throw gas or anything, just had never seen that mentioned anywhere before.
    Yes, in fact if the marriage between Ann and BHO Sr was illegal, given that he may have still been married to his wife in Kenya, the case of Obama’s natural born status is even less controversial.

    After all, then his supporters could shout with full assurance “I told you so”.

    This is far more fun… And politically the smart thing to do as opening up a single document would open the flood gates and achieve little while now much effort, time and resources are spent chasing a ghost. That’s rather a smart move of President Obama as it keeps his detractors busy while Obama is implementing his policies.

  110. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    British Hansard Oct 2002

    There is, however, concern that the reference to “inaction” may result in a group of people being left with no right of abode in any country, the very mischief the new clause is designed to avoid. Perhaps I may give an example. Kenyan law does not normally allow dual nationality. Section 12 of the Kenyan constitution provides that people who hold Kenyan and another-country citizenship will lose the Kenyan citizenship if they do not renounce the other citizenship between the ages of 21 and 23. The practice of the British authorities was not to consider special quota voucher applications from such people until those people reached 23, when they would qualify for vouchers if they had not renounced their British status because their Kenyan nationality had automatically been lost. The vouchers allowed people to come to the UK and subsequently to seek British citizenship through naturalisation. The voucher scheme was abolished on 5th March this year.

    Those affected were born in Kenya to a British father after independence on 12th December 1963 but before January 1983 when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force. They were able to inherit their father’s citizenship, renamed British overseas citizenship by the 1981 Act. After 1981, no British overseas citizen could pass on his or her nationality in this way.

  111. avatar
    NBC April 14, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    I just showed how Section 35 does not apply because Obama is not a “British subject” under BNA 1981 but rather would be a BOC.

    That is incorrect. Since Obama had Kenyan as well as US citizenship he would not have gotten a BOC designation which was reserved mostly for those who would otherwise remain stateless.

    Also:

    British Overseas Citizens (i.e. people who have a connection with a former British colony – for example, Kenya – who did not become citizens of that country when it became independent and did not become British citizens).

    But Obama did become a citizen of Kenya and did not become a British Citizen. In other words, Obama could never have become a BOC.

  112. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 15, 2009 at 3:08 am #

    I’d also point out that the US Attorney and AG can NOT bring an action against the US President — as their job is to DEFEND actions brought against the President & other members of the executive branch. The US Attorneys office in New Jersey has already entered an appearance to DEFEND Obama in Kerchner v. Obama.

    It would be a manifest conflict of interest for the same office to prosecute an action against Obama. Their job is to oppose such an action.

  113. avatar
    Heavy April 15, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    No comments from anyone but the idiot, richie.

    Doc, I’m curious to hear your comments on this post. Or are you ignoring it?

  114. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    The URL didn’t work, so I am ignoring it.

  115. avatar
    Heavy April 15, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    Really? It works fine when I try it. Please try it again. I really would like your thoughts.

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    I guessing the correct URL is (with a slash after 04 rather than a dash): http://rob7t7.blogspot.com/2009/04/obamas-hawaii-colb.html

    Which doesn’t really say much. The allusion is to the Sandra Lines affidavit. I discussed this in my article, Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery – Part 3.

    The bottom line is that Sandra Lines says you can’t tell if a document is a forgery just by looking at a picture of it. This is why a letter from a congressman typically refers to the FactCheck.org examination of the paper document rather than the Daily KOS (etc) image. The whole idea of a forgery is very implausible so backup from FactCheck.org is enough for most people. However, the positive statement by Hawaiian health officials (who could have said nothing if there was a problem with the published certificate) to me is absolutely conclusive.

    I should take note that Ron Polarik has updated his critique of the COLB images to include “proof” that the FactCheck.org images were photoshopped to add the state seal, and that the registrar stamp was from the wrong year. However, what he wrote is too long for any normal human being to read (probably his intent), so until he gives his real name and proves he has any qualifications as an image analyst in the first place, I’m not going to waste time proving that his second analysis is a fraud given that his first one is already proven so.

  117. avatar
    NBC April 15, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    In other words, the ‘expert’ claims that she would have to see the actual document which was scanned in. Which is, as Dr C explains, why it is so important that we also have actual pictures of the document which shows the relevant additional features that establish that the document is in fact real and prima facie legal evidence.
    Alternatively, the court could order a copy sent directly to his office, either way, the document, COLB, shows that Obama was born in the US. Combine this with various birth announcements and we have quite a convincing case with more evidence than doubters have.

    Born in Honolulu and thus a natural born citizen.

  118. avatar
    Bob April 15, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    In other words, the expert’ claims that she would have to see the actual document which was scanned in.

    If an “expert” didn’t say that, I would be worried.

  119. avatar
    WAYK April 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    1 The post-2001 COLB is legally irrelevant to (and thus cannot substantiate) Obama’s claim to US citizenship and the Presidency on the following grounds:

    The COLB is a computer-generated limited abstract of identifying data from Obama’s pre-2001 registration record. The original 1961 record supplied the information that went into a list of weekly registrations compiled by Hawaii Vital Records and issued to local newspapers. These lists were published as received. It is highly unlikely that such announcements were paid for privately (the exact same list in the same order appears in two newspapers). Consequently the address in Obama’s announcement – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – came directly from the registration as given by the birth informant – and this address was false.

    Public records show that in 1961 the Dunhams lived on Kamehameha Avenue and Obama Sr lived on 11th Avenue; these same public records also have a family called Lefforge (with three children under the age of seven) resident at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway (a large property) in 1961. The Lefforges’ neighbor from the time states that the Obamas never lived in 6085 Kalanianaole. Given that Kalanianaole Highway was and still is within the most expensive real estate (thus to rent) in Hawaii, that the newly married Obamas were unlikely to be running two households, and that the Obamas were college students with no jobs we must deduce that the Obamas never lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway.

    Entering false information – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – on a birth registration is a crime. This crime (or mistake) puts in doubt all other information in Obamas 1961 birth record. Printed on a COLB is the statement that it constitutes prima facie evidence of birth, meaning it is sufficient until challenged. Since a COLB’s probity is only as good as the probity of the registration from which it derives, and the probity of Obama’s 1961 record is suspect, it can only be concluded that any COLB Obama might submit is neither probative nor prima facie. It is to be expected that a court would bypass the COLB as irrelevant and require Hawaii to release Obama’s vault records for investigation and cross checking.

    2 Obama Sr was already lawfully married in Kenya ( http://tinyurl.com/64ebrq ), therefore Obama’s parents were never legally married under Hawaii or British law ( http://tinyurl.com/clha8a ). The same British law Apuzzo cites to make Obama a British citizen at birth also makes Obama illegitimate at birth. Even Obama wrote in 1995 that he could not document his parent’s “marriage” and feared to investigate its circumstances. If Obama Sr and Dunham went through a “marriage ceremony” (and I stress IF, as no Certificate has been located) then Obama Sr lied about not being married in Kenya: he lied to Hawaiian authorities and probably lied to Dunham at the time. There is some slight indication she only found out later that strange summer of 1961. Obama Sr never divorced his first wife: indeed after returning to Kenya they had two more children together. Using the established legal principle of “lex loci celebrationis”, whereby US states and foreign states recognize lawful marriages from other jurisdictions, in both British and Hawaiian law Obama Sr committed bigamy with Ann Dunham, if they ever “married”. The Obama-Dunham “marriage” was void and never existed. Obama Jr was, therefore, illegitimate and could never be and NEVER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN BY DESCENT. ( http://tinyurl.com/cxwkqr )

    3 Wherever Obama Jr was born in the world, because he was born out of wedlock, his mother only needed to have resided one year in America to transmit US citizenship. ( http://tinyurl.com/d6k9eg )

    4 Natural born citizenship, as written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, cannot be assumed to be based on any English common law definition prior to 1776. English common law as locally applied and carried over (”received”) by individual colonies–states into post-Independence law a) had no jurisdiction over nationality law, b) was limited in scope and pre-dated most British nationality statutes, and c) was never enacted and had no force at a federal level. For example, Virginia carried over (”received”) common law only at it was in 1607, South Carolina as of 1709, and Vermont as of 1760: because the North American colonies never had jurisdiction over nationality, important statutes that Obama loyalists rely on to interpret Article 2 are not available in either state or federal law. The claim that common law influenced the thinking of the Constitution’s Framers on natural born citizenship, while at the same time it did not influence their drafting of US nationality law, is extremely dubious. This http://tinyurl.com/co3q9n links to “Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida 1996, Dissenting Opinion by Justices Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg”, where they reject the notion that the common law was or is generally applicable in federal law and outline strong resistance to it when the Constitution was being written.

    5 Obama Jr and his mother only had to re-enter the US without a visa, as US citizens, for US immigration authorities to deem any expatriating acts they committed abroad to be null and void. ( http://tinyurl.com/db2cau )

    6 It has been claimed that Obama Jr was born in Mombasa, Kenya and therefore he was a British citizen at birth. Obama could only have been a “citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth if physically born in a British jurisdiction where this status was applicable.

    Mombasa, which was founded in the 8th century, had been essentially an Arab trading port for centuries: by the middle of the 19th Century it formed part of the independent Sultanate of Zanzibar. In 1887 Mombasa came under the control of the British. In 1920 Mobasa was incorporated into the Protectorate of Kenya. The Protectorate of Kenya, leased from the Sultan of Zanzibar, was a narrow but extended strip along the African coast some ways from the islands (and the separately administered Protectorate) of Zanzibar. The Colony of Kenya and Protectorate of Kenya, while legally separate, were administered as a single entity. The Colony was the Kenyan interior and everything but the coastal strip. The strip was the Protectorate of Kenya. The capital of the Protectorate of Kenya was Mombasa.

    The British Protectorate of Kenya was never a British Colony nor part of the Colonial Empire. A Protectorate was always in British law foreign territory and those born there owed their loyalty to the local monarch, and hence they were never deemed British citizens. The status in British law of those born in a British Protectorate was that of a “British protected person”: such a person was not a British citizen and allegiance to Britain was neither owed nor expected. The nationality law in force in the Protectorate of Kenya was that as decreed by the Sultan of Zanzibar. IF Obama Jr was born in Mombasa he was not a British citizen at birth: in these circumstances, Obama Jr’s nationality was Zanzibari and allegiance was owed to the Sultan.

    These conclusions are further enhanced by the fact that Obama Jr never resided or was domiciled in any British controlled territory nor (as far we know) held or traveled on a British passport (as a BPP). Born in Mombasa = natural born Zanzibari, which would make it difficult to be a natural born American. ( http://tinyurl.com/daebqr )

  120. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    This entire house of cards relies on hearesay unsworn testimony of what someone said that someone said that someone remembers from 47 years ago about a neighbor that lived 5 houses down from them. Given that such hearsay testimony is inadmissible, any court would rule that the prima facie evidentiary value of the COLB stands.

    And, pray tell, why would Obama be born in Mombasa, a city on the opposite side of the country from where his ancestral family lived, and a two-day journey from the country’s only (in 1961) international airport in Nairobi? I mean, if you’re going to pick a city out thin air, why pick such an improbable location?

  121. avatar
    Chris April 15, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    That’s an easy one to answer, Doc. It sounds ‘exotic’.

  122. avatar
    Bob April 15, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Mombasa, which was founded in the 8th century, had been essentially an Arab trading port for centuries

    For emphasis: Arab! Arab! Arab! Arab! Arab!

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    1. The smell test: if Stanley Ann’s parents lived in Hawaii, and Obama Sr. had an address in Hawaii, what possible reason could they have for giving a false address on the birth registration when they had two perfectly legitimate ones to give? Most plausible explanation: the hearsay statement and the uncheckable “facts” in the allegation are not true. The Honolulu Advertiser newspaper seems to think that the Dunham’s did live at that address and that there was a cottage out back.

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    2. While point 2 is I suppose plausible (although some objections could be raised including a date of marriage cited in divorce papers), it’s not relevant to Obama’s presidential qualifications, or much of anything else. We have already shown that any British citizenship Obama might have had is long gone. If true, this is a strong objection to the idea that Stanley Ann Obama traveled to Kenya.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    3. This is true; however, Obama was born in Hawaii quite certainly, so it is irrelevant.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    4. “Natural born citizenship, as written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, cannot be assumed to be based on any English common law definition prior to 1776.”

    This is certainly contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in several cases, most notably US v. Wong Kim Ark. There are certainly nationality laws among the colonies including the Georgia Charter of 1732, and nationality statues in Massachusetts and New York contrary to the assertion that “North American colonies never had jurisdiction over nationality.” The certainly acted like they did.

    The statement: “The claim that common law influenced the thinking of the Constitution’s Framers on natural born citizenship, while at the same time it did not influence their drafting of US nationality law, is extremely dubious” seems somewhat enigmatic to me as I do not know, and the writer did not explain, what US nationality law is at odds with common law. While the Seminole Tribe case dissenting opinion asserts that legislation can overrule common law, I do not see the direct applicability to the question at hand, and the writer does not explain it.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 5:52 pm #

    5. We have anecdotal evidence that Barack Obama did re-enter the United States on a US passport, and there’s no reason to think otherwise for either him or his mother.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    6. While it has been claimed that President Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, the president himself says that he was born on the planet Krypton. Both claims have equal evidence supporting them (i.e., none).

    There is no rational basis for discussing either claim until at least some evidence presents itself.

  129. avatar
    WAYK April 15, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

    1 You’re arguing with the wrong guy: I didn’t pick Mombasa, I was teasing out the legal implications of those tabloid claims alleging a hospital in Mombasa was Obama Jr’s birthplace…How would I know why Obama Sr (if he did) might choose Mombasa – maybe to keep Dunham away from Kezia (the legal wife), the way he did with his other American “wife”, Ruth ? Anyhow being born in the Colony of Kenya would establish Obama Jr as a natural born British citizen (their terminology), which makes being a natural born American a tad difficult…

    2 The neighbor (whose house OVERLOOKED the Lefforges at 6085) had no input to Obama’s birth record – heck, she never even saw the Obamas – so the COLB’s demonstrated legal irrelevance and inadmissibility derives from the newspaper announcements – announcements that OBAMA’S ATTORNEYS in court papers have referenced as evidentiary and probative. Again I merely think through the legal implications of OBAMA’S position. Should it become necessary I’m sure the neighbor would provide an affidavit, if she hasn’t already. That deposition would support the lack of any evidence, official or witnesses (not least from the Lefforges), which might prove the Obamas lived at the address claimed. (Unless of course somebody knows of any). At which point Hawaii gets a subpoena: but surely there’s nothing much to suprise us there, is there ?

    3 There’s an even simpler way to end the controversy: Hawaii Vital Records certainly will issue LONG FORM birth certificates if the applicant enters into the “REASON FOR REQUEST” box on the application form something like “GENEALOGICAL PURPOSES” or “DHHL Purposes” or even “PROOF OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY”. I wish Obama had done that last year instead of offering a COLB that doesn’t have any legal credibility (for the reasons stated). Obama might even have published the long form birth Certificate(s) he surely must have needed to use before Hawaii started printing COLBs in 2001. Questions, questions, always questions.

  130. avatar
    WAYK April 15, 2009 at 6:48 pm #

    Bob says “Arab! Arab! Arab! Arab! Arab!” on the assumption that I must have something against Arabs or Americans of Arab heritage.

    I think Bob reveals a lot more about his OWN unconscious prejudices than mine, in that he assumes that I could not possibly be of Arab or Middle Eastern heritage myself.

    Why not Bob ? What are you not saying about me ?

    (Political assumptions would be similarly unadvised…)

  131. avatar
    Bob April 15, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    You’re right; no one, but simply no one, to date has implied that Obama might be Arabic, or a Muslim.

    You are peddling this “It has been claimed that Obama Jr was born in Mombasa” tripe. Who is claiming? What is their evidence?

    Please.

  132. avatar
    NBC April 15, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    I wish Obama had done that last year instead of offering a COLB that doesn’t have any legal credibility (for the reasons stated).

    Too bad that it in fact does offer prima facie legal evidence that Obama was born in the US.
    I find it interesting why people want to reject a document which in Hawaii has the same evidentiary legal status as the original certificate of birth.

  133. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    First, WAYK, I appreciate your sticking around for dialog. Sometimes folks dump and run.

    Look carefully at the signed statement from the Mississippi PI, Jorge Baro from which the information related to Obama residences comes:

    [Baro writes:] Investigators contacted Beatrice Arakaki, who lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu, Hawaii. Ms. Arakaki’s residence is next door to the alleged residence of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama Sr. at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway at the time the Senator was born in 1961. Ms. Arakaki said she has lived at her current residence on Kalanianaole since before 1961 to the present day. Ms. Arakaki said she had knowledge of the family living in Waikiki and not on Kalanianaole Highway.

    Now exactly who is “the family” in that sentence? It clearly says “Stanley Ann Dunham [sic] and Barack H. Obama Sr.” It does not say that Stan and Madelyn Dunham didn’t live there. Now how exactly did Ms. Arakaki know where Stanley Ann and Barack did live, if they weren’t close to the family? Indeed, we know that the Stan and Madelyn Dunhams DID live on Kalanianaole Highway from 1960 to 1963 as evidenced by an article from the Honolulu Advertiser:

    [Stanley Ann] and her parents, Kansas couple Stan Dunham, a furniture store operator, and Madelyn Dunham (“Toot,” to Obama), a bank cashier, had come to Hawai’i in 1960 and moved into the Kalaniana’ole location. …

    By 1963 the Dunhams had moved into Apartment 110 of a six-year-old building at 1427 Alexander Street, records show.

    So let’s assume that “the family” in Ms. Arakaki’s statement was the Obama family. If the Dunham’s did live next door, then it makes sense that Ms. Arakaki would know where the Obama family lived as she claimed. If the Dunham family did NOT live next door, how in the world would Ms. Arakaki know where some obscure college kids who had only been in the city a year lived?

    Since the Dunhams lived at that address when Obama was born, it would not have been criminal or fraudulent or even unusual for Stanley Ann to have put down her mother’s address as her “usual residence”, especially if she were in transition from one place to another, or was unsure where they were going to live, or if (as the newspaper suggested) they intended to or actually did live in the “cottage out back”. College kids use their parents’ address all the time! There are half a dozen perfectly legal, harmless and plausible reasons why Stanley Ann Obama would have listed her parents’ address on the hospital form.

    Because we have no transcript of the Arakaki interview, only a biased summary, we do not know how much other information was provided that totally changes the meaning of the interview.

    There is simply nothing in this record that credibly challenges the birth announcement. And frankly, I see nothing that could be on the vault copy that would shed the least light on this discussion. It surely says the same thing as the newspaper announcement as you conceded at the beginning.

    Anyhow, thanks for bringing this up and giving me a second chance to think about it. I clearly have a better handle on what’s going on than I had when I wrote the original article on this last December.

  134. avatar
    WAYK April 15, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    Repeat: I did not say Obama was born in Mombasa. The “Globe”, Phil Berg etc are “peddling” it.

    I am analyzing it: to do that I neither have to like it nor dislike it.

  135. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    Yours is a different approach to some of these issue and has introduced some angles I haven’t seen before. In a field where so much is just cut and pasted over and over again, it’s rather refreshing, even exciting!

    I’m going to let your Mombasa theory analysis alone, since I don’t think the theory has legs in the first place. However, it can remain here for the record and perhaps [just kidding] if things change on the theory’s plausibility, I can come back to it.

  136. avatar
    WAYK April 15, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    “Honolulu Advertiser newspaper seems to think that the Dunham’s did live at that address and that there was a cottage out back.”

    The Honolulu Advertiser reporter wrote that given 6085 Kalanianaole was the address published in the 1961 announcements (nobody had known about this address before the announcements were “discovered” in July 2008) then (direct quotes) “it’s feasible the couple occupied” and “it’s possible the young Barack also visited” 6085 Kalanianaole. The reporter had no information to offer to substantiate his SPECULATIONS and he certainly didn’t interview the neighbor or the Lefforge children. Worse than hearsay.

    “…there was a cottage out back…”

    It doesn’t seem right to hold others to standards we are not willing to keep ourselves. Where is the evidence, testimony, or even hearsay which connects the Obamas to 6085 Kalanianaole or its “cottage” ? What is meant by “cottage” ? Whatever it is now, what was it doing in 1961 ? A satisfactory answer does not lead to more questions.

    “…what possible reason could they have for giving a false address…the allegation are not true”

    Because WE don’t know that the reasons the informant had for entering false information doesn’t automatically allow us to conclude that the “allegation” (more likely fact, given OBAMA’S ATTORNEYS cited the announcements) is not true. That aint logic.

    “..date of marriage cited in divorce papers…”

    So they lied. If there was no valid marriage there could be no valid divorce: therefore no British citizenship by descent for Obama Jr.

    “…Obama was born in Hawaii quite certainly…”

    Testimony as to the circumstances of one’s own birth is not admissible in court. Obama would have to provide a court with trustworthy evidence. The evidence so far provided (COLB) is not trustworthy (contains false information), therefore the documentary evidence would require investigation. Unless of course a court deems that false, and possibly criminal, entries on an official document can safely be ignored. Federal statute makes it crime in itself to ignore crimes, so it would be interesting to see how that would play in the media.

    “…colonies never had jurisdiction over nationality.” The certainly acted like they did.”

    The result being the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders complained that King George (of England !) was “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners”. It is APUZZO that writes (apparently in contradiction) at his blog: “Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law…” and “The error committed by those answering the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” is when they equate such a Citizen with a “natural born subject” under English common law…” Indeed, Obama’s supporters have claimed that Obama is a natural born citizen because either a) English common law in its entirety until 1776 was part of American law, or b) at Independence English common law up to 1776 (including nationality law ) was absorbed into federal law and constitution framing: neither claim is remotely true. The British Government repeatedly struck down attempts by individual Colonies to absorb or reproduce British statutes as being outside the Colonists’ jurisdiction, in the same way we do not allow California or Puerto Rico to write statutes which confer US nationality. A seamless transition of common law from Britain to US would allow a quick and simple interpretation of Article 2 in Obama’s favor. It’s hard to square such a seamless transition against the Declaration of Independence or the limited and patchy nature of individual Colony’s application or individual State’s carry-over of common law. As indicated, Justices currently at the Supreme Court (Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg), not known for their conservatism, are on record as seeing it just that way.

    “It does not say that Stan and Madelyn Dunham didn’t live there.”

    The Dunhams never lived at 6085 Kalanianaole. No official record or evidence will support this in court and indeed witnesses who knew them in 1961 are on record as locating them definitely at 2277 Kamehameha Ave. Even OBAMA has written that this was his family’s first address in Hawaii.

    Please do not misunderstand, the inadmissibility of the COLB does NOT rest on the testimony of a neighbor: it derives from the newspaper announcements that OBAMA’S ATTORNEYS have indicated draw their evidentiary value from the original 1961 birth record, although with regard to one important fact they are contrary to any other record. For example, why did Obama write in 1995 that 2277 Kamehameha Ave was his family’s address in 1961 when all he needed to do was consult his pre-2001 long form birth Certificate (and ask for his mother’s confirmation) to find that they actually had lived at 6085 Kalanianaole ? Questions, more and more questions; never answers.

    “…half a dozen perfectly legal, harmless and plausible reasons why Stanley Ann Obama would have listed her parents’ address on the hospital form…”

    We are talking evidence, right ? Not supposition, guess-work, or wishful thinking ? That’s for moonbat conspiracists, am I right ? Parents at 6085 Kalanianaole: contrary to the evidence. Hospital form: even less evidence for a hospital birth than for the Dunhams living at 6085 Kalanianaole.
    Neither is there any evidence that Ann Obama was the birth certificate informant. Obama’s claims for where he was born are inadmissible in court.

    Obama’s attorneys would have to do a lot better than this if they sought to avoid the long form birth Certificate being subject to a court order.

  137. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 15, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    Testimony as to the circumstances of one’s own birth is not admissible in court.

    Admissible evidence of birth (Federal Rules of Evidence, 803):

    (9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.

    (13) Family records. Statements of fact concerning personal or family history contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.

    (16) Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established.

    (19) Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

  138. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    Obama would have to provide a court with trustworthy evidence.

    There are no circumstances that I can conceive of at this time whereby Obama would be required to prove anything in court. No court has jurisdiction or power to rule on this matter; no case has been brought by any plaintiff with standing. Obama does not have to prove anything.

    Assuming for purposes of argument that you could actually get into court:

    The evidence so far provided (COLB) is not trustworthy (contains false information), therefore the documentary evidence would require investigation

    The COLB, which is by law prima facie evidence of birth, does not contain any false information. Your argument is that you can attack the validity of the source document by a claim that the residential address was false. Leaving aside the unlikelihood that you could produce such evidence (your “public record” information is likely derived from property ownership records, which do not disclose the names of renters) — you are making the mistake of thinking you could impeach the document by disputing a collateral matter contained within it. It is highly unlikely that such collateral-matter impeachment would be allowed. That is highly unlikely, because of the collateral nature.

    “Collateral” means: even if you were able to prove that the address given was false, that would not disprove the fact of birth.

  139. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    We are talking evidence, right ? Not supposition, guess-work, or wishful thinking ? That’s for moonbat conspiracists, am I right ? Parents at 6085 Kalanianaole: contrary to the evidence. Hospital form: even less evidence for a hospital birth than for the Dunhams living at 6085 Kalanianaole.
    Neither is there any evidence that Ann Obama was the birth certificate informant. Obama’s claims for where he was born are inadmissible in court.

    You’ve got it backwards: the EVIDENCE is the COLB — it is only in the absence of such records that courts would expect hear testimony of witnesses, etc.

    You are raising the sort of “questions” that explain why courts prefer public records. It would be typical in any case for it to be difficult to reconstruct outside, hard evidence of events that transpired many years ago.

    We know, for example, that there is a small bungalow located at the rear of 6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway. See: http://obamasneighborhood.com/homes.html

    It would probably be close to impossible to determine who may have lived in that bungalow as a renter back in 1961. Even the owners of the property at the time are unlikely to have preserved records that old.

    (The testimony of a neighbor as to “not remembering” who lived there is irrelevant — I don’t have a clue who many of my neighbors are – and if, in fact, the Obamas lived as renters in the bungalow, they may have only stayed for a very short time.)

    Unless you could prove the negative: that neither Obama nor any member of the Dunham family ever resided in that rear cottage, either as renters or guests — then you have shown nothing of relevance, other than reaffirming the reason why courts prefer to rely on public records as well as records such as the birth announcements printed in the paper.

    In any court, the newspaper birth announcements would be considered to be superior evidence: that is, the birth announcement would be taken as proof that Obama & Dunham lived at that address – rather than the “lack” of evidence being taken to prove the contrary.

  140. avatar
    WAYK April 16, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    For example, English common-law did not recognize color, had ruled slavery in England to be illegal, and the Colonies’ founding charters required all local law to be in accord with the laws of England. The Colonies introduced slavery and miscegenation laws, Independence did not make slaves citizens, and the 1790 US Naturalization Act restricted naturalization to “free whites”. Or: US nationality did not transmit to grandchildren born outside the US, while English common law allowed foreign-born grandchildren to become British citizens. Or this:

    “[Before 1870] Under common law, [British] persons could not divest themselves of their allegiance… The situation became increasingly unsatisfactory in view of a number of incidents between the American colonists and the British colony in what is now Canada. There was a certain amount of cattle rustling across the border. The Canadians made careful enquiries into the origins of any Americans they caught. If the Americans originated from a country other than Britain, they were fined heavily and released. If, however, they or their fathers or grandfathers had been born in Britain, they were hanged as traitors because they were British subjects (although they were also American citizens, the view was taken that it was not possible for these people to have divested themselves of their allegiance to the Crown).” [UK Govt Nationality Manual]

    By definition the US was not going to follow English common law on renunciation of citizenship: at sea, it was one of the causes of the War of 1812.

    Explained: Mario Apuzzo’s (contradictory ?) statements at his blog reference common law on US nationality, as do Obama’s supporters, who claim that a seamless transition from each individual Colony’s common laws to federal law confirms Obama as a natural born citizen and President. The reality is that the Framers of the Constitution neither legislated nor wrote the Constitution with punctilious regard for the common law: as we see, they often rejected it.

  141. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    Again your commentary runs against how courts have interpreted common law precedent. Especially when definitions were lacking and an appeal to common law principles was necessary.
    Rather than focusing on the facts, you seem to argue some instance where the US failed to follow common law explicitly. However that does not mean that common law was based on precedent where definitions were missing.

  142. avatar
    WAYK April 16, 2009 at 2:35 am #

    “Admissible evidence of birth….”

    If Obama relies on common law to sustain his claim to be a natural born citizen he can hardly avoid the common law principle that testimony as to the circumstances of one’s OWN birth is not admissible in court. Statements of fact concerning family history or reputation concerning personal or family history etc etc will persuade only when it is explained why neither Obama nor his family nor his friends are on record (books, interviews, letters etc) of being aware of the 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy address until July 2008. They (eg Obama’s sister) say something completely different. Did nobody, not even Obama, ever look at the pre-2001 birth Certificates which surely must have contained that address ? Nobody ever discuss it ? Statements on record (eg Obama’s autobiography) are to be withdrawn and suddenly, you imply, everyone remembers some new facts ? New stories will emerge that are detailed and consistent ? I certainly don’t think anyone is going to be stupid enough to invent stories to cover the gap, so I honestly don’t think there is going to be a new story about 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy. Who would believe it ?

    “…no circumstances…whereby Obama would be required to prove anything in court.”

    I never said there would be circumstances whereby Obama would be required to prove anything in court. I said:” Obama’s attorneys would have to do better than this if…” in relation to arguments advanced by Apuzzo, who does hope to get Obama into court.

    “Leaving aside the unlikelihood that you could produce such evidence…”

    Of a negative ? I’m sure skilled and diligent investigators, researching all possible available records, would (and probably already have) pursue the “evidence” that the Obamas never lived at Kalanianaole and the Certificate entry is false, but how long should proof of a negative be required to take ? That burden’s gotta shift at some point. And the proof that the Obamas (or Dunhams) DID live at Kalanianaole is….?

    “… that would not disprove the fact of birth.”

    I’m certain it wouldn’t, cos I’m darned sure we’re not dreaming or hallucinating Obama. Its not the fact but the FACTS (plural) of the birth that are in dispute. They cannot be truly established by Obama’s COLB when the document it absolutely relies on and is nothing without, the 1961 record, contains one or more false entries. What should we do: just forget about, pretend it didn’t really happen, act as if it doesn’t matter, believe you that it’s not that important ? I don’t see Obama’s attorneys (if it gets that far) convincing a court with that line of argument. Straight to discovery.

  143. avatar
    WAYK April 16, 2009 at 3:01 am #

    1 There was no uniform common law applied before or carried over at Independence.

    2 Consequently there was no federal common law.

    3 Instances where the Founders did NOT work common law into nationality law are obvious.

    4 Therefore common law cannot be cited as an unequivocal and determining interpretation of the Constitutional natural born citizen requirement.

    5 What other interpretive frame explains what “natural born” means ?

    6 Don’t assume I believe a court applying an alternative interpretive frame will exclude Obama.

  144. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2009 at 4:24 am #

    If Obama relies on common law to sustain his claim to be a natural born citizen he can hardly avoid the common law principle that testimony as to the circumstances of one’s OWN birth is not admissible in court.

    Sigh. Obviously WAYK you are not a lawyer and have no understanding whatsoever about legal procedure.

    First, as I have already explained, Obama does not have to rely on any theory to “sustain his claim.” Obama IS President. That he is a natural born citizen has already been accepted and acted up on by Congress, in certifying him (see 20th Amendment). There is no proof or court proceeding at which evidence will be presented.

    But even if there were, it would necessarily take place in Federal Court. And the Federal Rules of Evidence would apply. ALWAYS. No matter what substantive law Obama cited (and he would be citing US decisional law in any case, relying on the plain language of the 14th Amendment). But the point is it doesn’t matter — the rules of evidence do not change depending on the nature of the cause of action or theory being advanced.

    I said:” Obama’s attorneys would have to do better than this if…” in relation to arguments advanced by Apuzzo, who does hope to get Obama into court.

    By “Obama’s attorneys” – at this point you are talking about the US Attorneys office who have appeared to defend him in the case brought by Apuzzo. They will move to dismiss under Rule 12 on grounds that Apuzzo fails to state a cognizable claim, that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,, and that Apuzzo lacks standing. It wouldn’t matter of Apuzzo alleged that Obama was an alien invader from the planet Xenon… the legal argument would be the same. Obama’s birth place is not even in issue.

  145. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2009 at 4:47 am #

    the proof that the Obamas (or Dunhams) DID live at Kalanianaole is….?

    a) No need to prove that fact, as a matter of law; it is not relevant to proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, which is evidenced by the COLB and has not been rebutted.
    b) Even if the fact were in issue, the listing of that address in the published birth announcements from 48 years ago create are evidence of the fact (admissible as an “ancient document”) which would have to be rebutted by admissible evidence. Lack of other corroborating evidence would not be a rebuttal. The only conceivable way of disproving that fact that I can think of would be if the property owner at the time testified that the premises had not been rented, or if there was another occupant at the time who could so testify. (I believe I read somewhere that the owners of property are now deceased – so it’s unlikely that we will be hearing from them.)

    They cannot be truly established by Obama’s COLB when the document it absolutely relies on and is nothing without, the 1961 record, contains one or more false entries.

    You haven’t proven any entries in the underlying document to be false, and even if you did – that would be a collateral issue. It wouldn’t invalidate the part of the document that says that Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue is not where Obama’s parents lived at the time, it is where Obama was born.

    If his parents showed up at the hospital and gave false information in other respects — such as listing a fake address, misrepresenting their own ages, race or birthplace — it wouldn’t change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    What should we do: just forget about, pretend it didn’t really happen

    Pretend what “didn’t really happen?” Your active imagination?

  146. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2009 at 4:55 am #

    What other interpretive frame explains what “natural born” means ?

    The 14th Amendment and the federal nationality law in force at the time Obama was born (8 USC § 1401)

    “Natural born” = Citizenship acquired at birth

    The law now says that means:
    “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

    There was no federal statutory law defining birthright citizenship at the time of the Constitution, but even if there were, it would by definition have been supplanted by the 14th Amendment, so citizenship must be defined by those terms.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 6:31 am #

    The Supreme Court and other federal courts have already ruled that there was uniform common law. US v. Wong, Clarke v Lynch regarding citizenship.

    And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

    Edward Bates, US Attorney General

    By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

    The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

    Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 6:42 am #

    “The reality is that the Framers of the Constitution neither legislated nor wrote the Constitution with punctilious regard for the common law: as we see, they often rejected it.”

    That might be useful if you had any evidence that the Framers DID reject the principle of British Common law that everyone born in England was a natural born subject, but you don’t. And that might be useful if you had any legislation rejecting British Common law or defining the terms used for the qualifications of the office of President, but you don’t. Lacking anything else to go on, the courts have relied on the principle of common law, creating new American common law. Apuzzo’s dalliance with the Swiss philosopher de Vattel certainly stands far at the back of the line of things we might consider as reliable.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 6:49 am #

    “Neither is there any evidence that Ann Obama was the birth certificate informant.”

    Standard procedure would call for Stanley Ann to be the informant. Barack Obama Sr. is second with Madelyn Dunham a distant third.

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 6:54 am #

    “What should we do: just forget about, pretend it didn’t really happen”

    Obama’s opponents pretend that Obama’s certification by Congress as President didn’t really happen. That is their major point of error, and why their legal essays will go nowhere.

  151. avatar
    Heavy April 16, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    The fact of the matter remains…SHOW THE DAMN THING!

  152. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    Ignore Heavy!

  153. avatar
    Bob April 16, 2009 at 10:53 am #

    Berg’s been so debunked:

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/was-obama-born.html

    (And the Globe? Seriously? “Obama Born in Mombasa” really is right up there with “Steve Irwin Autopsy Shocker: What Really Killed Him” and “I’m Mel Gibson’s Secret Daughter”.)

  154. avatar
    Heavy April 16, 2009 at 10:59 am #

    Don’t you find it amusing to see how they argue that FACTS are fiction, but their fiction are facts?

    Liberals are truth averse.

    Did my libby friends enjot their “TEA” yesterday?

  155. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    Heavy is still ignoring the facts which by his own logic should make him a liberal…

    Obama’s COLB shows that he was born in Honolulu HI.

    Nuff said, Heavy cannot handle the truth when it contradicts his ‘faith’

    The tea parties were fun. Of course given the fact that President Obama reduced the taxes, the protests were less toward him as toward state tax hikes such as in California.

    That a few thousands of people found an outlet for their frustration and were allowed to let off some steam is a good thing.
    In the mean time, we should all be looking forward to a much simplified tax code.

  156. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    It was shown to you. Both in scans and actual photographs.
    And it shows that President Obama was born in Honolulu HI.

    I guess Heavy cannot handle the truth, or is willing to even look for it.

    Hilarious

  157. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    view the post at:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/obama-birth-announcement-false/#comments

    “So, the Arakaki family did not live there in the 60’s.”
    difficult to remember a neighbor at a place you didn’t live!

  158. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, ignore heavy!

  159. avatar
    Heavy April 16, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    I look forward to seeing the truth. We’ll know it when we see it.

    Truth is simple and beautiful, not convoluted and complex.

  160. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    ignore heavy, his jig is up!

  161. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    You are absolutely right Heavy.. the truth is very simple —> http://tinyurl.com/5nrmv6

  162. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    You have been shown the truth, and chosen to ignore it.
    Why is that?

  163. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    Little Jack Horner sat in the corner ignoring heavy as a waste of time!
    be like jack!

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Simple:

    Girl gets pregnant
    Girl goes to hospital and has baby
    Hospital sends paperwork to health department
    State registers birth

    Convoluted:
    Girl gets pregnant
    Girl flies to Nairobi airport and goes to Mombasa to have baby
    Grandmother takes 4 day cross-country trip to Mombasa to witness it
    Girl flies home to start false paper trail
    Somehow gets false birth registration into newspaper
    Girl fakes home birth and persuades others to commit perjury about one of only 14 home births in Honolulu for the whole year
    Birth is registered somehow within 4 days
    COLB is issued, but forged
    Hawaiian officials pressured into false statements, or convoluted true statements that mean nothing
    No Hawaiian birth certificate means anything
    Congress are wimps
    The Supreme Court is afraid
    State Secretaries of State are all idiots, afraid, or on the take
    FactCheck.org lied, and photoshopped their photos.

    Yes, Truth is simple and beautiful, not convoluted and complex.

  165. avatar
    Heavy April 16, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    Simple

    Man runs for President
    Man produces proper documentation to prove he is qualified to hold such office (As required by th Constitution)
    Man runs for office and either wins or loses the race.

    Convoluted

    Man runs for office.
    When question of elligibilty arises, SOMEONE (Not the candidiate, mind you) produces a computer generated document. Candidate is silent.
    Said document is posted on website that has ties to candidate.Candidate is silent.
    When authenticity of document is questioned, multiple web sites and blogs pop up to defend document. Candidate is silent.
    Candidate is asked to produce other records to prove elligibility.
    Said records are sealed. Candidate is silent.
    Concerned citizens try to force candidate to produce records through legal system.
    Candidate hires legal defense team. Candidate is silent.
    Multiple lawsuits are filed, on behalf of the people, rival candidates, military personnel. Candidate hires more lawyers. Candidate is silent.
    Media shills for now ILLEGAL candidate. Candidate is silent, arrogant and smiling.
    Voter fraud is committed by groups that have DIRECT ties to candidate. Candidates is silent, arrogant and smiling.
    Media ignores candidate’s ties to said groups and other radicals. Candidate is silent, arrogant and smiling.
    People fall for media hype, voter fraud and disinformation. Candidate is silent, arrogant and smiling.
    Candidate receives majority of votes (MANY illegally). Candidate is silent, arrogant and smiling.
    Candidate ILLEGALLY assumes office. Candidate is silent, arrogant, smiling and strutting.

  166. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Ignore heavy, he don’t listen, all you do is give him an opportunity to spout garbage or insults, don’t waste your time

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    But President Obama did exactly what you describe in the “simple” scenario. (Only President Obama could have gotten the COLB from Hawaii.)

    It is those in denial about the simple scenario that have added all the complexity.

  168. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Indeed, that is why the convoluted scenario does not make sense. Since the president did present prima facie legal evidence of his birth on US soil (Honolulu), he did exactly what Heavy calls the simple scenario.

    It’s that simple really

  169. avatar
    Heavy April 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    Not true at all, doc. His mother was still alive. Or, so we were told. Either way, the validity of what was “Presented” has been in question from the start.

    Now, only he can request the actual BC.

  170. avatar
    Heavy April 16, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    THE ONE did NOT present anything. An image was presented on his behalf. BIG difference. Your constant claim about prima facie is absolutely wrong.

  171. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    In addition to a scan, the office also provided access to third parties who took pictures establishing the presence of some of the missing features such as the stamp, the raised seal, and the creases.
    As to being wrong about prima facie legal evidence, the document itself states so and so does HRS 338-19

    §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]

    Seems heavy is still avoiding the truth.

  172. avatar
    NBC April 16, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Either way, the validity of what was “Presented” has been in question from the start.

    So the simple scenario somehow is complicated by some refusing to acknowledge the prima facie legal evidence?
    What happened to the pursuit of the truth?

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Obama presented the COLB on his own web site. Barack Obama is a human being, not a web server, so yes, the image was presented by a machine on his behalf. And Barack Obama is a human being and not a scanner, so yes, it was scanned by a machine on his behalf. Did he operate the machine himself? Who knows. Did he sign the form ordering the certificate from Hawaii? Almost certainly. Who paid the $10? His father, Jor-el?

    Why do you insist on Obama being held to a different standard than other presidential candidates? Because you are being obstinate.

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Stanley Ann Dunham died 13 years ago.

    Thanks, NBC, for the correction.

  175. avatar
    Chris April 16, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Well, I think there’s another reason. Starts with an R.

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    We have to allow the possibility that the creases were added later.

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2009 at 7:07 am #

    “Questioned from the start…”

    The nObama forces are improving. I’ve seen reports that Obama’s tax returns were faked by Tim Geithner, and this is before they’ve even been released!

    Recently, a report came out which i’m sure will be all over the MSM tomorrow about Obama’s taxes being released to the Public. You’d have to be a fool to believe that Tim Geithner couldn’t falsify that information in minutes. Also, it is Geithner who wrote a Treasury note stating that CEOs of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are void of taxes for the next 20 years!!

    Obama pays for nothing, and certainly not taxes .. everything is falsified with this guy .. the more people start to realize it, the sooner a unified solution can be reached to protect the Constitution, the first one demanding eligibilty [sic].

    http://www.repubx.com/blogger/post/Obamas-taxes-released-another-scheme-to-gain-public-confidence.aspx

    Totally out of touch with reality.

  178. avatar
    Heavy April 17, 2009 at 10:27 am #

    THE ONE is NOT being held to a higher standard. On the contrary, he is not being held to ANY standards. He has been given free riegn. And reign he is.

    Bowing to Saudi king and demanding that and image of Jesus be covered ,at Brown University, before he would speak there.

    This guy is an over the top ego maniac who must be stopped. Those who support this illegal will be held responsible for the damage being done.

  179. avatar
    Heavy April 17, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Yes, Chrissy. It starts with an R. REASON! Something liberals know NOTHING about.

  180. avatar
    Heavy April 17, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    Nice try, doc. Stick to the subject.

  181. avatar
    richCares April 17, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    see what I mean about ignoring heavy, he must be twins, you can’t get that much ignorance in one person! Ignore him!

  182. avatar
    Chris April 17, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    I’d say that anyone who runs for President has a healthy ego.

  183. avatar
    Mark April 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm #

    Wasn’t the 1776 revolution a big F U to Britian and their laws? Why does the BNA matter a rat’s rear end in America in 2009?

    What if the BNA said that British Citizenship applies to all British Citizens and their descendants for 1,000 generations?

    My father was born in Europe. Therefore I am not an American?

    Good luck Birthers, declaring people you do not like as not Real Americans.

  184. avatar
    WAYK April 17, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    “…if you had any evidence that the Framers DID reject the principle of British Common law that everyone born in England was a natural born subject…”

    1 Natural born slaves were not citizens in America: slavery had always been illegal in England.

    2 The common law as applied in the Colonies (eg Virginia as of 1607 or South Carolina as of 1709) predated statutes which extended nationality in England.

    3 Common law from the 1770s, which deemed grandchildren born outside Great Britain as British subjects, were not reflected in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

    “…if you had any legislation rejecting British Common law or defining the terms used for the qualifications of the office of President…”

    1 Every Colony–State had it own idiosyncratic patchwork and partial use of common law, and there could be no agreed definition of what common law might be at a federal level, so common law did not become federal law.

    2 Statutes by individual States carrying over common law did not adopt the entirety of English common law but only those parts as had been applied before Independence: this a) excluded those areas of law over which Colonies (now States) had no jurisdiction, and b) excluded those parts of law which post-dated laws that Colonies (now States) recognized. It’s not merely a question of what the Framers thought: no federal adoption of common law meant that new authority for new definitions of new responsibilities had to be found.

    3 The Declaration and Constitution were a transition that created new definitions, laws, and responsibilities at a level where none had existed before in America: at the level of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the evidence of rejection you seek. It lead to the war of 1812, when sovereign American and British definitions of nationality and allegiance clashed.

    4 Blackstone’s Laws – a text consulted by the Framers, with which they didn’t always agree but confirm, because we know there was no FEDERAL adoption of common law: “…the common law of England, as such, has no allowance or authority there [North America]; they being no part of the mother-country, but distinct (though dependent) dominions. They are subject, however, to the control of the parliament, though…not bound by any acts of parliament, unless particularly named.” The British nationality statutes (eg 1730 4 Geo. 2 and 1773 13 George) don’t particularly name the American Colonies, and don’t apply to children whose fathers were in revolt against the Crown or who weren’t Protestants: so these statutes were never available in common law to the Founding Fathers (ignoring other considerations). To claim otherwise is to claim that the Revolution was the overthrow of the common law: a claim refuted by the carry-over statutes enacted by the several states and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84: “[to those who claim]…that the [New York] Constitution adopts…the common and statute law of Great Britain….I answer…The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution.” US sovereign power was the sovereign power to write new unprecedented AMERICAN nationality statutes.

    “Apuzzo’s dalliance with…Vattel…”

    Apuzzo probably will never admit to himself there is a way that Obama can be shoe-horned into Vattel in a way that makes Obama a natural born citizen.

  185. avatar
    WAYK April 17, 2009 at 5:59 pm #

    I have posted elsewhere that Berg’s briefs are riddled with inaccuracies. Bob seems to be stricken with a curious obssession that someone here is promoting the Globe story.

  186. avatar
    WAYK April 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    Natural born” = Citizenship acquired at birth – Expelliarmus

    Apart from any other problems linking the 14th Amendment with Constititutional natural born status (eg in the 14th Amendment “natural born” is never mentioned, its framers explicitly disavowed conferring “natural born” status, and the exclusion of native Americans), an interpretive frame from 1866 applied retrospectively will require an extremely convincing pitch.

    So far the pitch has only convinced those predisposed to being convinced.

  187. avatar
    Bob April 17, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    You are the one peddling Berg’s and the Globe‘s claims. If you don’t believe them, why bother?

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    Commentary on WAYK:

    You are making a case under which (contrary to several court decisions) British Common law is rejected, but you give no authority for anything else. You further raise a smoke screen of a “patchwork” of colonial laws. But at least one court case states that the colonies were in fact uniform that persons (except slaves) born in the colony were it’s citizens, and several including New York, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Georgia use “natural born” language.

    And while you say “Declaration and Constitution were a transition that created new definitions, laws, and responsibilities at a level where none had existed before in America”, you fail to note that citizenship legislation existed before the Declaration (such as in the Georgia Charter), and you fail to provide any authority to support what YOUR version of the “new definition” is.

    And finally, the courts have already rejected your thesis in re citizenship, so it’s all moot. While “US sovereign power was the sovereign power to write new unprecedented AMERICAN nationality statutes”, they did not choose to redefine “natural born citizen” and they did not chose to require a parentage test in the Constitution.

    You say that the framers of the 14th amendment “explicitly” rejected “natural born” language, but that is simply not true. Look up the definition of “explicit”. They said nothing on the subject at all.

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    It convinced the US Supreme Court.

  190. avatar
    WAYK April 17, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    1 Please let there be no confusion: I am not arguing Apuzzo’s case nor for his standing.
    2 This blog is not a court of law, giving more latitude for discussion – which is why we can allow…
    3 Consideration of Obama’s COLB, although right now it’s no more than an edited and inadmissible online image.
    4 I never said any cases against Obama would come to court or that they would not.
    5 I do not assume that the only cases filed against Obama have been or will be federal.
    6 “Parents’ address” on a birth certificate is not optional: it’s there because it identifies, just as “name” or “father” identify. If Obama can’t be identified with the address, it’s of the same order as not being identified with other unique data. Then again maybe…
    7 Expelliarmus is surely and incontrovertibly right ! Whichever informant lied on the Obama’s birth record about where the family lived can NOT be assumed to have lied about anything else on that document: that could not possibly be a valid inference nor be of any interest to a court (never mind the jury) in determining the true facts of the case. Why even go there ? More…
    8 We must also be relieved and grateful to Expelliarmus for explaining how a court has not the even slightest possibility of discretion with regard to collateral matters. We also yearn and pray for a court that will always disregard secondary evidence which proves the content of an original document, especially when that secondary evidence (newspaper announcements) has already been admitted by attorneys (in court writing) as correctly reflecting the contents of a document. Thus fortified, we can be sure that with Obama’s COLB there should be no need to apply Federal Rule of Evidence 106: “When a writing or…part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing…which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
    9 A similar and fortuitous lack of discretion by a court (never mind the jury) with regard to the Best Evidence rule should happily allow the uncontested submission of an incomplete record (COLB) whose original document, as well as not being properly duplicated, can be shown to contain probability of fraud. On the other hand the fact that Obama has acknowledged possessing long form Certificates certainly means that a court (never mind the jury) would never contemplate their production or infer from non-production. It should also be seen as underwhelmingly unimportant that the Notes to FRE 1003 observe that “…reasons for requiring the original may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder…may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party.” Correspondingly, malcontents and paranoiacs should disperse quietly now: the Rules of Evidence offer no hope for your deluded machinations.
    10 Federal and Hawaii agencies do not accept Hawaii COLBs in every case.

  191. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    WAYK,

    You seem to be continuing under the misapprehension that there is a problem with the address on the birth registration. There is not.

    You say: “10 Federal and Hawaii agencies do not accept Hawaii COLBs in every case.”

    They accept it in every case they accept the long form.

  192. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    5 I do not assume that the only cases filed against Obama have been or will be federal.

    By what theory would a state court have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the US President’s qualifications for office?

    6 “Parents’ address” on a birth certificate is not optional:

    What law requires that? This form – http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg – only shows the mother’s “usual” address, but there is no indication that it is mandatory.

    Whichever informant lied on the Obama’s birth record about where the family lived can NOT be assumed to have lied about anything else on that document

    What legal authority do you have for your assertion that records of vital statistics can be controverted through a collateral attack of secondary information on an underlying form? The purpose a birth certificate is to document the time and place of birth — that would not be negated by false or inaccurate information about the parents.

    Also, how can you prove that the address was false? We know that the property was owned by a University of Hawaii professor and that there was a small bungalow in the rear — what evidence do you have that Barack Sr. never rented or occupied that bungalow?

    can be shown to contain probability of fraud

    Rank speculation does not equate with “probability”.

    Obama has acknowledged possessing long form Certificates certainly means that a court

    False. Obama has never stated that he possesses anything other than the COLB.

    offer no hope for your deluded machinations.

    Insults won’t get you anywhere.

  193. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    “False. Obama has never stated that he possesses anything other than the COLB. ”

    In his book, Dreams from my Father, Barack Obama makes a cursory mention of seeing a birth certificate when he was in high school. We don’t know whether it was a legal birth certificate, or one of those hospital souvenirs like my parents got when I was born (when I tried to use it was the first time I heard a hospital certificate called a “souvenir”), and we don’t know if he still has it.

  194. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Apart from any other problems linking the 14th Amendment with Constititutional natural born status …an interpretive frame from 1866 applied retrospectively will require an extremely convincing pitch.

    So your argument is that the 14th Amendment does not apply to determining citizenship status for President?

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 19, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Citation from Lynch v. Clarke (Supreme Court of NY, 1844) in re the Common Law:

    The Constitution of the United States us well as those of all the thirteen old states presupposed the existence of the common law and was founded upon its principles so far as they were applicable to our situation and form of government. And to a limited extent the principles of the common law prevail in the United States as a system of national jurisprudence.

    The New-York Legal Observer Containing Reports of Cases Decided in the Courts of Equity and Common Law, and Important Decisions in the English Courts ; Also, Articles on Legal Subjects … with a Table of Cases, a General Index, and a Digest of the Reports By Samuel Owen

    It is an indisputable proposition that by the rule of the common law of England if applied to these facts Julia Lynch [born in the United States, the child of two temporary Irish residents who returned to Ireland with Julia soon after she was born] was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and indeed before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England were natural born subjects without reference to the status or condition of their parents. …

    Second Such being the rule of the common law in the absence of express legislation the difficult question is presented for decision is the common law in this respect the law of this state or of the United States. If it be the law here then Julia Lynch was a native born citizen and inherited the property in controversy assuming that it was the property of Thomas Lynch as alleged in the bill of complaint. ibid.

    But in reference to all foreign nations wе stand as one single and united people The United States of America. The right of citizenship a right which is not only important as between the different states but has an essential bearing in our intercourse with other nations and the privileges conceded by them to our citizens is therefore not a matter of mere state concern. It is necessarily a national right and character. ibid.

    Thus in the Colonial Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously on the 14th of October 1774 the Congress declared that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England. Jour. of Congress 1774 p 27 &c. ibid.

    The Constitution of the United States like those of all the original states, (and in fact of all the states now forming the Union with the exception of Louisiana) presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions. In adopting the state and national constitutions those fundamental laws which were to govern their political action and relations in the new circumstances arising from the assumption of sovereignty both local and national our ancestors rejected so much of the common law as was then inapplicable to their situation and prescribed new rules for their regulation and government. But in so doing they did not reject the body of the common law. They founded their respective state constitutions and the great national compact upon its existing principles so far as they were consistent and harmonious with the provisions of those constitutions. A brief reference to the Constitution of the United States will illustrate this idea. It gives the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives and the sole power of trying an impeachment to the Senate. Impeachment is thus treated as a well known defined and established proceeding. Yet it was only known to the common law and could be understood only by reference to the principle of that law. The Congress was authorized to provide for the punishment of felonies committed on the high seas and for punishing certain other crimes. The common law furnished the only definition of felonies . The trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment was to be by jury and the constitution speaks of treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, an uniform system of bankruptcy, attainder, and the writ of habeas corpus; all which were unknown even by name to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law. In like manner the amendments to the constitution make provisions in reference to the right of petition, search warrants, capital crimes, grand jury, trial by jury, bail, fines and the rules of the common law. In these instances no legislative definition or exposition was apparently deemed necessary by the framers of the constitution. They are spoken of as substantial things already existing and established and which will continue to exist. And the legislation of Congress immediately following its adoption and in which they proceeded to carry out in detail the new system of government left most of these things to stand upon the same footing that they previously were the principles of the unwritten or common law.

    …It has never been deemed necessary for Congress to legislate upon the rules of pleading or evidence or of the construction of statutes or contracts or upon any of the multifarious rules and principles of law and equity which have been daily used and applied in civil cases in the courts of the United States from the year 1789 to the present day. So of the rules of evidence and the proceedings in criminal cases. All these principles rules and forms of proceeding have been adopted from the common law as a matter of course without doubt or question… ibid.

    And in the debates on the judiciary in 1802 to which I have before alluded Mr. Bayard of Delaware in an able speech in the House of Representatives said on this subject (what was not disputed so far as facts were concerned,) that “the judges of the United States have held generally that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the soundness of that opinion I never had a doubt I should scarcely go too far were I to say that stript of the common law there would be neither constitution nor government. The constitution is unintelligible without reference to the common law. And were we to go into our courts of justice with the mere statutes of the United States not a step could be taken not even a contempt could be punished. There would be no form of pleading no principles of evidence no rule of property. Without this law the constitution becomes a dead letter. For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts that the common law was in force.” Debates on the Judiciary 1802 p. 372 And see 1 Story’s Comm on the Const. 140 141 157 158 and note 2 2 ibid 262 to 207 794 to 797 Rawle on the Const 258 ibid.

  196. avatar
    sendmejackson June 17, 2009 at 2:20 am #

    Hey Heavy, the alleged “covering of Jesus” before a speech took place at Georgetown, and it was the letters “IHS” that were covered. This was a matter of standard procedure followed for any POTUS giving an official policy speech. Hate Obama if you must, but please try to keep things factual.

  197. avatar
    Heavy June 17, 2009 at 9:03 am #

    Sendme, you clearly have no understanding of the facts. Typical for a liberal. Come on back when you do.

  198. avatar
    Peter June 17, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    This is the 44th time a president was elected. And only now it is discovered by somebody on the internet that there are constitutional requirements about the guy. All of the responsible government agencies somehow missed that for the past 200 years.
    If it was a movie, it would be a lousy plot.

    I´ve been following this conspiracy for months now, and it has been hilarious. Although the last few weeks it becomes boring, with the same debunked arguments endlessly being reiterated. I´m still hoping for some spicy stuff. Like an alien obduction of Obama when he was supposed to be in Indonesia. That would be fun.

  199. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 17, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    Heavy – show us where Obama covered up Jesus at Brown. As far as I know, sendmejackson is correct.

  200. avatar
    NBC June 17, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    Ah, Heavy caught in yet another ‘fact’ which does not seem to have support in reality.

    Fascinating

  201. avatar
    Joehorn June 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    Look, I don’t want to put people down and I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, especially mine, but everyone seems to be missing the point. While I do not buy into the theory that Ms. Obama’s mother and father grabbed a jet to Kenya to have the messiah only to return within the year and register his birth in Hawaii, (the economics of such a jaunt being prohibitive in that time period), it does not explain Obama’s peculiar behavior of hiring a bevy of attorneys to fight suits seeking to release his long form birth certificate, his college records or his passport records. It does not explain how nobody knows anything about this guy before 1991. I mean nobody remembers him in Columbia and he states that he is bad with names with people he went to College with. I don’t know about you, but I can name thirty people I went to college with and I graduated the same year as Obama. What I find even more disturbing however is that there is a complete lack of interest of the press and with individuals citizens. As a citizen you have a duty to question your leaders. Remember, government power is dangerous and must be controlled, which is kind of the whole point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I mean you have the editor of Newsweek saying Obama is God, and Chris Mathews going yeah, yeah, in the background, that’s just down right scary. Are yet no-one is a little bit curious about this guy or his background? I guess the magic box tells everyone and everyone believes.

    Now for a quick lesson, if anyone even cares to listen and wants to read further. The phrase “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution and has never been defined for someone in Barrack Obama’s position, which is to say a person born in the United States with a mother who is a citizen of the United States and a father who is a subject of the British Crown. (I think if they ever release the vaulted birth certificate, it will show he is born in Hawaii.) The Supreme Court has ruled that a person who was born in the United States and has two parents that are United States citizens is definitely a “natural born citizen”. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person born in the United States and both parents are not United States citizens is, now listen closely, a native born citizen. Now, a natural born citizen and a native born citizen are not the same thing. In dealing with the law and with Supreme Court rulings, words mean something, or they used to. Now some might say that it is a slam dunk case that Obama is not a “natural born citizen”. The fact of the matter is it is an open question, but a pretty important one don’t you think?.

    Now the Supreme Court could rule that yes, Obama has enough to be considered a “natural born citizen”, case closed, and everybody goes home and for myself I’ll be happy as a clam because I dread to think of what would happen in the alternative. The court could rule that it is not enough, in which case inner cities will explode, we will look foolish around the world and Joe gets to be acting President until Congress sorts it out. (That is if Obama steps aside, I mean he could pull and Andrew Jackson and just ignore the ruling.) No, what the Supreme Court going to do, as have no enforcement arm and Congress is so in the bag for the messiah, and not anything but follow his lead, is not hear the case. What will happen is nothing. Which is a shame, because the Constitution is the basis for the government and not something to be side stepped when inconvenient. The case should be heard and a ruling should be made.

    Please don’t waste your time typing insults as I won’t be back soon.

    I do have a challenge. I feel certain about my analysis having a Juris Doctor in Law. What I need is an experienced Constitutional Attorney to tell me if there are any rulings that would define someone in Obama situation as a “Natural Born Citizen” I mean there was an Law Note in the April 1984 Harvard Law Journal regarding this question. They sited a case saying that if your born in the U.S. your a natural born citizen, but I have read it twice and did not understand how they reached that conclusion.

  202. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    Joe Horn says (italics)

    it does not explain Obama’s peculiar behavior of hiring a bevy of attorneys to fight suits seeking to release his long form birth certificate

    You only have to read the lawsuits themselves to find your answer. The suits raise a laundry list of false claims. The birth certificate (if it could be obtained which is doubtful) wouldn’t resolve any of the cases.

    This web site is about evidence, not innuendo. If you have some evidence to support a conspiracy theory, share it.

    As for your “natural born citizen comments”, they are assertions, but you cite no case law. Having been all over this material, I know that you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    If you want to understand the legal underpinnings for “natural born citizen”, I suggest you read the New York case Lynch v. Clarke. It surveys the material and cites the cases you need to straighten yourself out. There’s a link to it on the Bookmarks page here.

  203. avatar
    creeksneakers2 July 12, 2009 at 3:33 am #

    You probably won’t be around to read this but I’m going to try anyway.

    You are looking at Obama’s responses from the perspective of a birther, not from the perspective of Obama. To birthers, this whole thing is the most important issue there is and the world revolves around it. Public servants are expected to respond to all birther challenges, but those rules don’t apply to other challenges involving other people. They sure didn’t apply to George Bush, who even instructed his staff to ignore valid Congressional subpoenas. Bush didn’t answer anything he didn’t want to, and the birthers never complained. But Obama is expected the crawl on his knees to follow birther orders.

    From Obama’s point of view, you are setting up rules that mandate that he disprove your accusations, whether there is any evidence to support them or not, and disprove them until unobtainable birther satisfaction is achieved. This is a recipe for a witch hunt. Once one is started its almost impossible to stop.

    Its already almost impossible to prove a negative. On top of that, with a witch hunt, accusations flow in faster than explanations can be offered.
    Each new piece of information is picked apart and used to ask more questions. The accusers love the uproar they are creating, and don’t care one bit about what is true or right, so they have no reason to ever stop accusing and questioning.

    Once a witch hunt starts, the original accusation is no longer important. The hunt itself becomes the story. If Obama answers 20 questions, why doesn’t he answer the 21st? What is he trying to hide? Suppose a document is misplaced. The birthers would scream “cover up” and “obstruction of justice.” Suppose two people have slightly different recollections of an event. This is how recollections usually go. But the birthers would say that the difference means one of the rememberers lied.

    There is no end to what witch hunters can pull. A common tactic I saw in Congressional investigations in the 90s was to ask a witness questions all day like, “What were your exact words 15 years ago?” The witness would not be able to remember. These type questions would be asked over and over. By the end of the day, those who watched CSpan with an open mind would see the witness totally destroyed the conspiracy theory of the moment. But the witch hunters would have a press release ready that said “The witness used some form of the words ‘I don’t remember’ 186 times.” The accusers would scream cover up and all the media would go with that story, and completely ignore the substance of what else the witness said.

    These are just a few examples of what comes through a door opened by a surrender to an accusers’ prove yourself innocent rule.

    Suppose Obama provided a long form birth certificate? The birthers would just call it a forgery. All that would be established would be that Obama had to submit to birther demands for proof of negatives. The birthers already have extensive lists of documents they are demanding. The lists would only get longer. There would be no end.

    So there is absolutely zero upside for Obama to provide the birthers with anything. Why could he possibly gain?

    Look at the alternative from Obama’s perspective. Nobody listens to birthers. Everybody, including most Republicans, thinks birthers are all kooks. There is no way for birthers to put any pressure on Obama to respond.

    Look at the results. The Obama ignores the birthers and instead of running a big witch hunt the birthers are left empty handed and looking like fools.

    So, Obama’s disinterest has nothing to do with him hiding something. The mere suggestion it does is just another example of birthers trying to make someone look guilty if he does not submit to their inquisition. Obama is ignoring bithers because its the common sense thing to do. He’d have to have his head examined if he danced a step with any of you.

  204. avatar
    creeksneakers2 July 12, 2009 at 7:24 am #

    Sorry for placement, this was meant to reply to Joehorn.

  205. avatar
    creeksneakers2 July 12, 2009 at 7:25 am #

    Please see my post above.

  206. avatar
    kimba July 12, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    Well said.

  207. avatar
    Joyce July 12, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    “It does not explain how nobody knows anything about this guy before 1991. I mean nobody remembers him in Columbia and he states that he is bad with names with people he went to College with. I don’t know about you, but I can name thirty people I went to college with and I graduated the same year as Obama.”

    Obviously people do remember Obama before 1991. Here’s an article from The New York Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

    I even met a woman at a Christmas party that went to high school with Obama.

    Where does this “nobody knows anything about this guy before 1991″ stuff come from? Its not true, but gets repeated over and over again anyway.

  208. avatar
    aarrgghh July 12, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    if you haven’t already read barackryphal’s “a birther platonic dialog”, you’re in for a treat.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/01/for-inauguration-day-birther-platonic.html

  209. avatar
    aarrgghh July 12, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    as a general birfer rule, if something is posted three times, it must be true!

  210. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 12, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    Obama first came to national public prominence in February, 1990, when he was elected President of Harvard Law Review:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

    Before that time he hadn’t done anything worthy of being famous nationally, but of course his college and high school friends remember him. The high school friends have even gotten together and written a book about their memories.

    There’s no shortage of teachers peers from high school and college who have been quoted in the press — a quick Google search turns up dozens of articles — but of course the birther myth lives on.

    I think the more apt question would be, how come none of the birthers started paying attention to him until after he cinched the Democratic nomination? (That is, why can’t you find any blogs or articles speculating on whether he is a natural born citizen from, say, 2007?)

  211. avatar
    creeksneakers2 July 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    Thank you!

  212. avatar
    creeksneakers2 July 12, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    Thanks for the link. I got lots of laughs and agree with the point. Birthers make it sound like a sum of $10 and a release form would settle all this. They are either being dishonest or are totally unaware of their own habits.

  213. avatar
    Bob July 30, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    Apuzzo (excuse me, Mountain Goat…excuse me, Kerchner) has reposted his original article of epic failness.

    Must be time for summer reruns…lots of chatter lately about Maya’s Hawaiian COLB, Sun Yat-sen’s Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, and other such reheated nonsense.

  214. avatar
    Welsh Dragon July 31, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    “The act for Kenya was the Kenya Independence Act (1963). Unfortunate for this analysis, the section of the Act dealing with citizenship was repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981, and all online copies of the Kenya Act accessible to me have the original sections stricken. ”

    A pdf of the original Act can be found at:

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

    It should come as no surprise that it backs up the Doc.

  215. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    Thanks for the document.

  216. avatar
    IceTrey August 7, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    Yes but what about this section from the KIA 1963.

    3(3) A person shall not cease to be a citizen of the United
    Kingdom and Colonies under section 2(2) of this Act if he was
    born in a protectorate or protected state, or if his FATHER or his
    father’s father was so born and is or at any time was a British
    subject.

  217. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    From sec. 3(1): “shall not include
    a reference to Kenya or any part thereof.”

    In other words, if a person could claim CUKC status through a protected state other than Kenya, then they’re still CUKCs, despite Kenya’s independence.

    As Obama’s only claim to CUKC status was through Kenya, sec. 3(3) didn’t apply to him.

  218. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Obama’s father was not a British subject; he was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. They are different things under British law.

  219. avatar
    Bob August 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm #

    Kerchner’s buying space in the Washington Times for the Obama-is-still-a-Brit argument.

    Wonder if this’ll draw some attention.

  220. avatar
    nbc August 13, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    I doubt it, that case will soon be denied anyway.

  221. avatar
    Bob August 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Oh I didn’t mean attention to the case…will it be yet more fodder the late-night comedians?

  222. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 13, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    I can see it now…

    Them going…

    “To find out truly if he is a Brit or not, we’ll have to ask the White House Kitchen staff if whether or not the beer that he shared was warm.”

  223. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 13, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    Reminds me of the propaganda advertisments that Kim il-sung used to place in western newspapers.

  224. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 13, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    Overhere, the event (with the professor and the police man) was reported as “Obama haters otherwise known as “birthers” protested that the beer served was Belgian”. The only Belgian beers that should not be drunk cold and almost straight from the fridge (although beer culture barbarians often put them in the fridge, an outrage!) are all red: Rodenbach, Kasteel Rood, … The beer on the photographs does not look red.

    Since Obama was really born on Krypton, I would not be surprised if the beer was simply Stella Artois.

  225. avatar
    Bob August 13, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    And over here, there was just the usual racism.

  226. avatar
    jtx August 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    A greatly flawed analysis on several counts, Doc.

    The treatise by Mario Apuzzo sets it out much more clearly and corrects your mis-interpretation. “You’ve been punked” I believe is your preferred Enabler Conspiracy saying.

    Not only was Sr. a Brit (British citizen) but so was sonny – and, quite apparently, still is. Still you must think it’s really neat to have the nuclear football in the hands of a British citizen; especially one who cannot be a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

    Piss on the law, eh???

  227. avatar
    Greg August 22, 2009 at 10:00 am #

    Amendments to later laws in Britain, whether they took out citizenship language or not, cannot restore the citizenship revoked by the Kenyan Independence Act. Apparently, Apuzzo didn’t read the law very carefully. On the first page, clause 2:

    (2) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to
    extend, to Kenya, or any part of Kenya, as part of the law thereof ; and on and after that day the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect with respect to legislative powers in Kenya.

    Schedule 1 basically says that Kenya has all the powers of a national legislature.

    He lost his CUKC Citizenship when Britain passed the KIA, and unless they explicitly re-enacted his citizenship, he never regained CUKC status.

    Piss on the law? You first have to be able to read it, jtx!

  228. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 22, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    Mario also failed to use the original Act his references are to the ‘as amended’ version.

  229. avatar
    John September 11, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    “British subject” as defined by BNA 1981 refers to something else entirely – this used to be called “British subject without citizenship” prior to BNA 1981 and does not apply to the Obamas (who were CUKCs).

    There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding BNA 1981 repealing KIA (Kenya Independence Act). It is important to remember that BNA 1981 abolishes the status of CUKC (by repealing BNA 1948 which establishes this category). Instead BNA 1981 introduces new categories of British nationality (British Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, etc) and the acquisition of one of these new categories depends on one’s status immediately prior to the commencment of BNA 1981. In other words, whether Obama received one of the newly created categories of British nationality depends the KIA before its repeal.

    The repeal of KIA by BNA 1981 may give the impression that Obama regained British nationality, but this is not the case. BNA 1981 abolished CUKC and created new forms of British nationality which were dependent of one’s status prior to any repeals.

  230. avatar
    kimba September 11, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    Well, we know he likes dijon mustard on his burgers. So that makes him a commiefascistfrench-lovingsocialistelitistiveyleaguesnob, but not a Brit. But a good question for the White House kitchen is if Obama has asked them to make bangers and mash on Friday eves. Or maybe fish and chips, with vinegar. That will reveal all.

  231. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 11, 2009 at 10:05 am #

    Quite right John but Mario doesn’t understand how a repeal works – he’s been told but does not listen.

  232. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 11, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    Nowadays the most popular british dish is “Chicken Tikka Masala” – what would the nobots make of that!

  233. avatar
    kimba September 11, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    “hmmm… tikka…sounds kenyan, hmmmm….”

  234. avatar
    John September 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    It doesn’t help that British nationality is so complicated and confusing (and that the UK is one of the very few countries that actually has multiple classes of citizenship).

    The simple summary:

    Before BNA 1948: The only status was “British subject”. People from independent or self-governing countries like Canada, Australia shared a common status with people from the UK and its remaining colonies.

    BNA 1948 (and related legislation in Canada, Australia etc): Most British subjects retained their British subject status but also acquired a newly introduced citizenship (Canadian, Australian, UK and Colonies. etc). The few British subjects which for some reason did not acquire a citizenship became “British subjects without citizenships”.

    BNA 1981 (took effect Jan 1 1983): CUKC status abolished. Those who were still CUKCs immediate prior to implementation became British Citizens, British Dependent Territories Citizens or British Overseas Citizens (this is actually the first time “British Citizen” became an actual status). British subjects without citizenship became “British subjects”. Other British subjects (eg Canadian Citizens etc) became “Commonwealth citizens”. (The was an additional category “British Protected Person” which is not relevant here.)

    (Just to be complete, since 1983, British Dependent Territories Citizenship has since been renamed British Overseas Territories Citizenship and another catgory of British nationality – British National (Overseas) was introduced.)

  235. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 11, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    If you are going to cut and paste from my blog to this blog what John asked me on the British citizenship issue, I would hope that you cut and paste all my answers to his questions. Do you not agree that is the decent thing to do?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  236. avatar
    nbc September 11, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    What? You mean you cannot do the ‘decent thing’ yourself?

  237. avatar
    Bob September 11, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    “Decent” would be not censoring comments that prove you wrong.

  238. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm #

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t copied anybody’s questions from your blog. Who is John?

  239. avatar
    kimba September 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm #

    Whaaa? Mario is John’s Cyrano? Whodathunkit?

  240. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 11, 2009 at 10:28 pm #

    kimba,

    You cover all the issues.

  241. avatar
    kimba September 11, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    Oh, perhaps John is Charlie McCarthey to your Edgar Bergen then?

  242. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 11, 2009 at 11:43 pm #

    Google works wonders!

  243. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 11, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    Decent would be responding sensibly.

  244. avatar
    nbc September 12, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    And yet, when responding sensibly, and one’s comments get censored, would you still call that ‘decent’?
    I believe that you may have re-interpreted sensible and decent just like you seem to have done for the term ‘natural born’, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

    Interesting.

  245. avatar
    nbc September 12, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    That’s even funnier… Perhaps John copied them and Mario thought that it was sensible to hold you responsible…
    Weird

  246. avatar
    Gordon September 12, 2009 at 2:23 am #

    Mario is making me believe everything my lawyers friends told me about being a lawyer. They said, “Kid the toughest thing about being a lawyer was finding someone to help you do your law school homework”.

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2009 at 7:19 am #

    The first article, A question for Mr. Apuzzo was a question that I left on his blog. He held it in moderation, wrote an article, and then attached my question to that article, crediting me. This was a serious question that was based on an article I wrote last March, De Vattel for Dummies, that talked about the plural “parents” in the oft-cited passage. I was reminded of my article, and my objection, by a comment here again some time back about the use of the plural in French.

    The second article, More questions for Mr. Apuzzo, was based on two sources. The question about carrying off women was inspired by a comment here by BenjiFranklin citing the rather odd section in de Vattel about carrying off women; I extended the concept to ask whether their children would be natural born citizens. The second part about the “right of succession” directly came from my reading of de Vattel. Neither of these questions was really intended to be taken seriously, nor was an answer expected.

    It is not my practice to copy and paste other people’s stuff without attribution. I do get ideas and leads from commenters here and on Politijab that I flesh out into articles. Mario Apuzzo flatters himself if he thinks I read his blog. I rarely visit there, and I never read the comments.

  248. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2009 at 7:27 am #

    Google works wonders, but WestLaw gets better quality results. ;)

    Seriously though, the original Berg v Obama complaint was essentially a large compilation of Internet rumors.

    I got a email from a college professor quite a few years ago telling me that one of his students had submitted a paper, and used an article from my web site (not this one) as a citation. He commented a little (negatively) about the appropriateness of relying on such sources, and then said that he really enjoyed my jokes page.

    Search engines and the Internet have their place, but skepticism and critical thinking (something the nobots lack) are necessary to use them safely.

  249. avatar
    John September 14, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    I am the same person that posted here and on Mario’s blog. And no, I did not copy my comments. I wrote them separately for both sites, although obviously there is a lot of overlap in content and language. It should be easy to check that the comments are not word-for-word.

  250. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    I like the way you guys assume that I was the one who was googling his way through this maze although how can anyone say that is not part of it.

    Also, how can anyone reasonable believe that just finding the information is sufficient. It goes without saying that you have got to read it, understand it, organize it, and write about it in an intelligent, clear, organized, and understandable fashion.

  251. avatar
    nbc September 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    I wish you all the luck to do this. Although a little bit late in the game…

  252. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 14, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    nbc

    Who gave you the patent on all things in the universe?

  253. avatar
    Greg September 14, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    Kind of an ironic, if incomprehensible, reply from someone who said:

    It goes without saying that you have got to … write about it in an intelligent, clear, organized, and understandable fashion.

  254. avatar
    nbc September 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    What makes you say this? I on the contrary am under no obligation to support a conclusion and thus, like Dr C, am free to explore where the data leads.