Main Menu

The Fall of the House of Birther

While there never was any credible objection to President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president, some issues were raised that looked good, at least until they were examined. Over the course of the last 6 months, this web site has examined these issues, digging to find if there were some substance in them, exposing fraud and replacing rumor with fact.

People believe what they want to believe, and in the face of that fact simply showing that there is no basis for the belief is not enough. Refutation, when possible, is better. Many contributors here and elsewhere have searched the pubic record for information for refutation. I have searched as well. Here are the results of that search, addressing the four major objections to Obama’s eligibility:

  1. President Obama was born in Kenya
  2. President Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became an Indonesian citizen
  3. President Obama traveled to Pakistan when travel to US citizens was banned.
  4. A president of the United States must be the child of US Citizen parents, and President Obama’s father was British.

President Obama was born in Kenya

This was always an implausible scenario and it probably wouldn’t have persisted except for a tape recording, with barely audible sections in an African language, that purports to be Sarah Obama (the President’s paternal step grandmother) saying that she was present when President Obama was born. The tape recording, available on this web site, and its associated transcript by researcher Greg Doudna, clearly shows in its complete and unedited version, that the speaker is saying President Obama was born in Hawaii. The details and evidence are in my article: Sarah Obama Speaks!

Now the hospital in Honolulu where President Obama was born has acknowledged Obama’s birth there by including him in its official 100th anniversary celebration, with a web page and video footage. I think we may finally put the “born in Kenya” fantasy to rest. Barack Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center, in Honolulu, Hawaii.

President Obama renounced his US Citizenship and became an Indonesian citizen

This theory assumes a fact not in evidence, namely that Barack Obama was adopted by his step father, Lolo Soetoro. However, research by this web site shows that such a change in citizenship is impossible under both US and Indonesian law, regardless of whether Obama was adopted or not. The details and evidence are in my article: Hollister v. Indonesian Citizenship Law.

President Obama traveled to Pakistan when travel to US citizens was banned.

Research by another blogger turned up a State Department document stating that visas to Pakistan were available to Americans at the border. The “travel ban” was a lie, plain and simple. The details of the evolution of that lie are documented in my article: Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport (updated).

A president of the United States must be the child of US Citizen parents, and President Obama’s father was British

This is a question of law, rather than of fact (all agree that President Obama’s father was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies). A huge compendium of material has been collected to prove beyond doubt that the Constitution has no parental requirement in it, nor was such a requirement anticipated by the framers. In fact, there is a judicial note from 1844 that the universal opinion of the public mind was that everyone born in the country was a natural born citizen.

Holdouts cite a Swiss philosopher, who they say used the phrase “natural born citizen” in an influential work, insisting that this was the only definition that existed at the time. However, this web site exposed the truth in the article De Vattel Revisited that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the edition of the book that existed at the time the Constitution was written and ratified.

Conclusion

In Barack Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, there is a scene that I think is an apt metaphor for the persistence of Obama eligibility denialists.

I watched the man set the [chicken] down, pinning it gently under one knee and pulling its neck out across a narrow gutter. For a moment the bird struggled, beating its wings hard against the ground, a few feathers dancing up with the wind. Then it grew completely still. The man pulled the blade across the bird’s neck in a single smooth motion. Blood shot out in a long, crimson ribbon. The man stood up, holding the bird far away from his body, and suddenly tossed it high into the air. It landed with a thud, then struggled to its feet, its head lolling grotesquely against its side, its legs pumping wildly in a wide, wobbly circle. I watched as the circle grew smaller, the blood trickling down to a gurgle, until finally the bird collapsed, lifeless on the grass.

Dreams from my Father, p. 35

, , , ,

95 Responses to The Fall of the House of Birther

  1. avatar
    jtx May 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Despite all your overheated rhetoric in defense of the O-borter, none of that is the issue.

    The issue is – is the man legally eligible to hold the office of President. And that can – and will – only be determined in a court of law under the laws of our country … and the sooner the better since if he is NOT eligible as millions definitely believe or wondcer about, then he is doing terrible damage to our country.

    For my money it is shameful that the supporters of this man are also seeking to prevent such a legally constituted hearing. I would think you’d like to know the truth (rather than just guessing at it as you do) and see his legacy cleared of the stain that so clearly is upon it.

    Do you hate this man – and your country – so much that you cannot abide a formal, legal hearing???

  2. avatar
    kimba May 25, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    Well thing is, the legally constitutional remedy is impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction by 2/3 of the Senate. That is the legally constituted way to remove a sitting President. And President Obama is the legally seated President by the procedure of the 12th amendment. ( When the Congress certified the electoral college vote on Jan 8, Obama was legally the President-elect. Where were your reps? You only needed 2 to object.)

    I would submit that it is you who hates this man enough you’d throw the consitution out the window to change the will of the American people. My suggestion is you put your birther ire and energy to work and find a candidate who can get more votes in 2012. And take heart, on Jan 20,2017, Obama will be ineligible under the 22nd, so you birthers will someday be able to shout to the skies “he’s inelligible!”, and at last you’ll be right!

  3. avatar
    brygenon May 25, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    No jtx, you have it exactly wrong. President Obama’s eligibility was established months ago and the formal legal process has concluded. The open issue now is how much defeat you birthers need to heap upon yourselves.

    Questions do not remain open simply because you refuse to face the answers. If you will not take a clue from anything less than a U.S. Supreme Court decision specifically ruling that Obama is eligible, then Obama remains President any you remain clueless.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    JTX in Italics…Despite all your overheated rhetoric in defense of the O-borter, none of that is the issue.

    I am shuddering at the force of your pejorative language.

    The issue is – is the man legally eligible to hold the office of President. And that can – and will – only be determined in a court of law under the laws of our country … and the sooner the better since if he is NOT eligible as millions definitely believe or wondcer [sic] about, then he is doing terrible damage to our country.

    Remind me, when was the trial held for George Washington? You seem to be under the delusion that just because some conspiracy theorists believe impossible rumors, that there has to be a trial, and you seem to be under a delusion that President Obama is not president. And just exactly what is this terrible damage that will be done to the country if your imagined ineligibility is discovered today rather than two years from now?

    For my money it is shameful that the supporters of this man are also seeking to prevent such a legally constituted hearing. I would think you’d like to know the truth (rather than just guessing at it as you do) and see his legacy cleared of the stain that so clearly is upon it.

    Well naturally President Obama and his advisers would rather focus the Administration’s message on economic recovery, health care reform and national security, rather than turning Fox News in to a 24×7 commentary on misleading information, lies and rumors. (Remember OJ?)

    Do you hate this man – and your country – so much that you cannot abide a formal, legal hearing???

    Do you hate this man – and your country – so much that you crusade around the Internet stirring up false suspicions, and demanding a trial to publicize your delusions?

    Unless you want to debate with facts and evidence, we can trade insults with you until the cows come home.

  5. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    The issue is – is the man legally eligible to hold the office of President. And that can – and will – only be determined in a court of law under the laws of our country … and the sooner the better since if he is NOT eligible as millions definitely believe or wondcer about, then he is doing terrible damage to our country.

    You are wrong, the only place to determine this is Congress.
    So stop whining about it and accept the fact that your side lost the elections.
    You do realize that now more than 40 lawsuits have failed because the courts have rejected standing, judiciability etc?

    This is NEVER going to be resolved by the courts because of the separation of powers.

    Too bad eh?

    For my money it is shameful that the supporters of this man are also seeking to prevent such a legally constituted hearing.

    That’s because there is no legally constituted hearing. Simple as that. It’s called lack of standing, lack of judiciability, failure to state cause and so on. COmbine with this the manufactured ‘evidence’ and you would realize that even if the courts would hear the issue, they would laugh the evidence out of court.

  6. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 25, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    Obama should stop fighting the lawsuits and submit his letter on White House stationary as evidence he’s NBC.

    Obama will say, “But judge, I swear its all true.”

    The letter and a link to the website containing an image of his COLB should be enough to settle the matter.

  7. avatar
    richCares May 25, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    hey Sven, which lawsuit is he fighting?

    and in case you haven’t noticed, Obama is the president

    additional note:
    Scientific American lists Obama among it’s top 10 people that helped Science to advance.

  8. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Obama should stop fighting the lawsuits and submit his letter on White House stationary as evidence he’s NBC.

    Obama will say, “But judge, I swear its all true.”

    The letter and a link to the website containing an image of his COLB should be enough to settle the matter.

    Obama is doing the right thing to protect his rights. After all, the issue of standing is a significant Constitutional requirement.

    Since Obama and his campaign have submitted statements that Obama is eligible, as supported by his COLB and other information, and since the Congress accepted his qualifications, it seems that the chances of legal success are minimal.

    Sour grapes…

  9. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    Certainly true with his position on Global Warming where the US government finally is taking seriously the solid scientific evidence.

    Then again, we are also the same country that believes in the fairy tales of a young earth and deny the facts of evolution.

    Sigh…

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    It may be that this could be tried in a state court come next election if someone challenged Obama’s place on the ballot. There is a law review article raising this possibility. If this did happen, it could be heard by the Supreme Court on appeal.

  11. avatar
    Joyce May 25, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    I would think you’d like to know the truth (rather than just guessing at it as you do) and see his legacy cleared of the stain that so clearly is upon it.

    How is it that the birther’s attempt to stain Obama becomes Obama’s responsibility to remove.

    Obama’s legacy will be determined by what he does as president, not the imagined circumstances of his birth.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    This is not exactly the article I wanted to write. Still the resolution of the “which hospital” question demanded writing article number 300, and since that tricentennial had been reached, I figured I might just as well publish this one also. I had hoped to have my FOIA back for Article Number 300, but it hasn’t happened yet.

  13. avatar
    Arlen Williams May 25, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    Utterly untrue: “A huge compendium of material has been collected to prove beyond doubt that the Constitution has no parental requirement in it, nor was such a requirement anticipated by the framers.”

  14. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    In fact, since Dr C has presented indeed a huge compendium of materials, it is on you to disprove his claims.
    To call it untrue without further argument shows, well, the typical level of argumentation we have come to expect from those who are unwilling to do the research.

  15. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 10:28 pm #

    Is this the same Arlen Williams? That explains a lot.

  16. avatar
    Gordon May 25, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    Obama is done with the tinfoil hat crowd. There will be no letters and no court cases (except when the courts routinely toss them).

  17. avatar
    Beckwith May 26, 2009 at 5:16 am #

    Re: “A president of the United States must be the child of US Citizen parents, and President Obama’s father was British.”

    Actually, Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject — as was his son, Barack Obama II. Therefore, the guy sitting in the Oval Office does conceptually have “divided loylties.”

    You provide, as your documentation that Obama is a natural born citizen, “a judicial note from 1844 that the universal opinion of the public mind was that everyone born in the country was a natural born citizen — that’s just silly — a note?

    Opinion isn’t law. Everyone born in the USofA is not a natural born citizen, and that’s law.

    The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution.

    The question remains unanswered in any United States court.

    Here is the law and its background:

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

    Educate yourself.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 6:49 am #

    Well it’s good to see that the old Doctor can still poke holes in the nObama ant hill and the likes of Beckwith will run out.

    I used the citation from Lynch v Clarke for its historical value, refuting the myth that parental requirements for president was somehow an idea that was pervasive in former times. It was as unknown in 1844 as it was in 2007, universally unknown. I treat my sources with contextual integrity, something Beckwith (as evidenced by his web site) wouldn’t understand.

    Beckwith says: “Everyone born in the USofA is not a natural born citizen, and that’s law.” That is true: a child born to the Kenyan ambassador in the United States is not a citizen of the United States. However, anyone in Barack Obama’s position is. If you have a law to cite, cite it. “Educate us.”

  19. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 26, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    I thought Obama’s attorney fought discovery on his Occidental College records because the opposing counsel didn’t exactly following the rules of the California Supreme Court. Something about advanced notice so he could object to the subpoena before his records see the light of day. If the records had been exposed, Obama still could have objected to their use as evidence, but his “secret” would be out.

    Also, Obama advanced the theory the CA SoS can investigate and eliminate a Presidential Candidate on the CA ballot, but he/she is not required to investigate if a complaint is lodged.

    It sounds like Obama wants to protect the Constitution, but only as long as its considered a living document to be molded as a situation arises.

  20. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    It sounds like Obama wants to protect the Constitution, but only as long as its considered a living document to be molded as a situation arises.

    As I said, garbage in, garbage out.

    Perhaps if you for once attempted to stick closer to the facts and not your ‘beliefs’?

    PS: The California lawsuit which attempted to subpoena the records, was, as is the case with the many other cases, dismissed.

    Seems that the plaintiffs are having some trouble with the Constitutional requirements and guarantees…

  21. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    The question has already been decided, namely that any child born in the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. The only exceptions are children born to invading military and ambassadors. By virtue of being born in a country, you owe allegiance to the laws of said country.

    As to educating yourself… Pot kettle black.

  22. avatar
    Sally Hill May 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    Oh wow NBC – I missed reading that decision SCOTUS handed down – could you link that decision here?

    I was under the impression that SCOTUS had passed on hearing all cases brought before them on Obama’s eligibility issue. I’m looking forward to your link so I can read it!

    In the meantime – I’m still undecided on the issue. Words are words, but actions speak very loudly. I’m bothered a great deal by Obama’s very own actions of traveling to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative who believes in Sharia Law.

    Even if you can make a case for Obama being a NBC, or SCOTUS rules he is a NBC – that will NEVER negate his actions. Were his actions born out of paternal loyalty or the fact that he too believes in Sharia Law? Still worse, is his appointment of Harold Koh who openly professes to believe in transnationalism AND Sharia Law. NBC or not – Obama’s OWN actions make me question his loyalities and motives for America.

  23. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    Oh wow NBC – I missed reading that decision SCOTUS handed down – could you link that decision here?

    It’s an old decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    In the meantime – I’m still undecided on the issue. Words are words, but actions speak very loudly. I’m bothered a great deal by Obama’s very own actions of traveling to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative who believes in Sharia Law.

    Perhaps getting the full details may help? But that hardly affects his natural born status, just your perception of his actions.

    Even if you can make a case for Obama being a NBC, or SCOTUS rules he is a NBC – that will NEVER negate his actions. Were his actions born out of paternal loyalty or the fact that he too believes in Sharia Law? Still worse, is his appointment of Harold Koh who openly professes to believe in transnationalism AND Sharia Law. NBC or not – Obama’s OWN actions make me question his loyalities and motives for America.

    I understand, and your beliefs make you carefully pick and chose ‘evidence’. I understand. The idea that Obama supports Sharia law is just ludicrous.

    Which is why I am not surprised that it’s made.

  24. avatar
    richCares May 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    “Obama’s very own actions of traveling to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative who believes in Sharia Law”

    this story is false and easily refuted!

  25. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    It seems Obama’s campaign denies that the person in question is a paternal relative, and that he traveled to Kenya to campaign for said ‘relative’.

    While the story was aired during the campaign, it failed to achieve its intended effects.

    Swift-boating Obama was found to be a bit too complicated…

  26. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    MAJ. GEN. J. SCOTT: Mark Hyman’s “Obama’s Kenya ghosts,” (Commentary, Sunday), was a disgraceful smear on Sen. Barack Obama. Because I accompanied Mr. Obama on his trip to Kenya, I can say unequivocally that Mr. Hyman’s piece was filled with lies and innuendo.

    Read more here

  27. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    And the final claim about Shariah law may also have been false

  28. avatar
    richCares May 26, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    what’s really amazing is that no matter how often these false stories are debunked, birthers continue to spout them. That is an awful lot of hate! Either birthers are easily lied to or they are liars, same difference!

  29. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 26, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Largely your example of the Ambassador’s child is because the child is not under the jurisdiction of the United States (having recieved full diplomatic immunity by being the child of a diplomat). Any other resident of the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Even if someone was born to two illegal aliens, he’s still subject to the jurisdiction of the laws, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and therefore a citizen at birth.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    Sally Hill: “I’m bothered a great deal by Obama’s very own actions of traveling to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative who believes in Sharia Law.”

    I’d be bothered too, if it were true (it isn’t). I think you would have a lot less bother in your life if you took the time to verify the things you hear. Obama want to Kenya, and while he was there, he met with several political leaders. He didn’t campaign for anyone. Odinga did claim Obama was a relative, but the Obama family says otherwise.

    According to Forbes Magazine, the comment from Koh about Sharia Law, turns out to be apocryphal (i.e. didn’t happen).

  31. avatar
    jtx May 26, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Sharia law or not he DID campaign in Kenya for his relative Odinga using a bullhorn to speak to crowds and Odinga is the guy who had the Muslim thugs attack and kill others including a church full of Christians … no Muslim was attacked.

    And during the NH primary in Jan 2008 Obama was on the phone with Odinga “advising” him and there was about $1 million donated to Odings efforts by “friends of Senator BHO” (whoever that might be).

    Let’s just get this all into a court proceeding and thrash it all out for the good of the country. Why do you fear that???

  32. avatar
    JeffSF May 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    NBC- thanks for the link to the Letter by Gen. Scott.

    Most of the Nobama folk are great supporters of the military just so long as they support their whacko ideas. Yet a literate response by a Major General as to the facts of the trip has no credence. I had been looking for some solid information about his trip, and that is the best I have seen yet.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    I assume that since you provided no evidence, you have none, and from that I concluded that either you made it up, or somebody made it up for you.

    If you’re too lazy to cite sources, then I’m not going to waste my time posting the evidence demolishing them.

  34. avatar
    jtx May 26, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    No Doc. –

    No one – including your – provides “evidence” since this is not a court hearing despite yolur pretense. That comes later and then the evidence will roll out.

    You can, of course (and often do, I note), assume whatever you like. It’s amazing that you guys are so fearful of this matter being settled in a real court of law; you all seem to not want that to happen … so I guess we get to “assume” why just as you do and it ain’t pretty.

  35. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    We’re not fearful, after all, all the evidence contradicts your position. Of course, we have the added luxury that none of this will be heard in court.

    Tada…

  36. avatar
    jtx May 26, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    The good General must have been off partying with his drinking/war story buds when the O-borter was waving the bullhorn around spouting off. Perhaps you also missed the video of it (just as the General did apparently).

    And Odinga several times called the O-borter his “cousin” from the same tribe. Perhaps that’s not a BC, but then that has been sealed if it exists (in Kenya or elsewhere … why would that be???).

    I’ve a great idea – let’s have a real honest-to-God court trial with evidence under the rules of law so that when the O-borter is found to be legally eligible to hold the office you’re home free and have extensive bragging rights. Of course if it doesn’t go that way …

  37. avatar
    jtx May 26, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    Hate???

    Nope – just want the truth in a court of law under rules of evidence. Why do you O-borter fans object so strenuously to that since you assume he is eligible???

  38. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    And Odinga several times called the O-borter his “cousin” from the same tribe. Perhaps that’s not a BC, but then that has been sealed if it exists (in Kenya or elsewhere … why would that be???).

    Because according to Obama’s uncle and Obama, Odinga is not his cousin.
    But then again, you are quick and willing to take the words of anyone but President Obama.

    Of course, you are still lacking standing.

    Too bad as the issue has gone away to most of the country, leaving a few waste their time and efforts on an issue that will lead nowhere.

    What a concept. Must be tough.

  39. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    You are not interested in the truth or you and your friends would not be making up these ‘facts’.

    Sad really but also quite transparent.

    Countless a court has rejected that your position has any standing. Combine this with the fact that Obama was born on US soil and we have a minor complication for your position.

    Frustrating isn’t it…

  40. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    jtx,

    I thought the “facts” you stated about President Obama sounded familar. These were false rumors from early 08. All were declared false by snopes and politfacts. Did you just woke up this morning?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    JTX: “It’s amazing that you guys are so fearful of this matter being settled in a real court of law”

    Not fearful at all. I’ve seen the complaints in many of these lawsuits; they are utter drivel. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking has already packed up their tent and gone home. If a court decides to hear the case, let it be heard. My only reservation is that I hate to see people being humiliated, which is what the denialist lawyer would surely be.

    The denialists have already called for the impeachment of judges that ruled against them. Why should we expect any different should Obama’s eligibility be affirmed in a hearing on the merits? The idea that the denialists can be convinced by anything is as much a fantasy as Obama being born in Kenya.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    I know the difference between speculation and fact. I don’t confuse the two.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    Opportunist Odinga, as I said before, did call Obama his “cousin” but that don’t make it so. You don’t have any footage of Obama calling Odinga “cousin”.

    Obama does have cousins in Africa, but that doesn’t mean that he was born there.

  44. avatar
    NBC May 26, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    ROTFL. Are you suggesting that JTX is just parroting false rumors. Oh the humanity…

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 9:53 pm #

    I’ve just had an epiphany.

    I keep hoping for some quality debate on this blog for a change — something that would be stimulating, challenging and informative for everyone.

    I just realized: there aren’t any thoughtful, reasonable people who believe Obama is ineligible. My hope will never be fulfilled. [Sigh]

    People have suggested that I take up golf.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    A more detailed refutation is here and here.

  47. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 26, 2009 at 10:24 pm #

    The word “cousin” or other words signifying relationship can and frequently are used very loosely, as in, “all men or brothers”. So you have to take cultural norms into account when interpreting phrases — in some cultures it is very common for young people to call all adults in their community “aunt” or “uncle”, and it may well be the case that the reference to “cousin” might simply be a reference to a common tribal ancenstry.

    After all, Dick Cheney is also Obama’s “cousin” – quite literally…. but also quite “removed”. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2677660.ece

  48. avatar
    richCares May 26, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    “you also missed the video of it ”
    jtx
    sure we all missed that video along with the whity tapes, give us a link will you? or are you pulling that out of your rear end?

  49. avatar
    myson May 27, 2009 at 3:38 am #

    Jtx, i said it b4 & i’ll say it again get your people bringing the lawsuits to convince the right parties & a court case will be on !!
    If they cant persuade the right parties to bring suits then they are not serious about getting there case b4 a court. Finding the right parties is very easy, these are the pple with some claim to the office of the presidency, get them & present your case & any evidence you claim to have.
    No one waste time in court with the wrong parties, that would be stupid, you fight only the right parties

  50. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 27, 2009 at 5:25 am #

    Myson.. it is TOO LATE — there are no “right parties”. Any challenge had to be brought BEFORE Congress met to certify the electoral college. It’s in the Constitution — the ONLY way to challenge eligibility after the election is by a proper objection raised to Congress. When the Congress certifies the electoral college vote in January, it is by definition a determination that the President is eligible.

    So there is no “right party” nor any jurisdiction at this point. The Constitutional procedures were followed and a determination made. It was over, completely, on January 8th. Everything since then has simply been birther-fantasies.

  51. avatar
    Ian Gould May 27, 2009 at 7:18 am #

    No one – including your – provides ““evidence” since this is not a court hearing despite yolur pretense. That comes later and then the evidence will roll out.

    You can, of course (and often do, I note), assume whatever you like. It’s amazing that you guys are so fearful of this matter being settled in a real court of law; you all seem to not want that to happen … so I guess we get to “assume” why just as you do and it ain’t pretty.”

    So you think their will be a court case that’ll address your claims that Obama campaigned for Odinga>

    Quick facts which I’m sure you’ll never accept:

    1. Odinga is a Christian. In fact he’s a Born Again Christian. (He was raised an Anglican before joining a Pentocostal church.)

    2. There was no agreement before the Kenyan election to introduce Sharia law and shariah law has NOT been introduced in Kenya.

    3. Odinga has a history running back to the 1970’s of opposing successive Kenyan dictatorships.

    4. Odina is a Luo – a majority-Christian ethnic group – in the 2007 election he was running against Mwai Kibaki – also a Christian. Kibeki is a member of the Kikuyu tribe – who have controlled Kenya since indepndence.

    5. Odinga was leading in the election, Kibaki, running for the Kenyan African National Union, the part of successive dictators, tried to stop the count.

    6. When Luos protested against the electoral fraud, some Kikuyu resorted to violence. The overwhelming majority of the people killed where Luo christian supports of Odinga.

    7. The only slight element of truth in the whole pack of truth you’re trying to promote is that a minority of Odinga’s supporters are Muslims. Guess what – the majority of Kenyan Muslims supported Kibaki.

  52. avatar
    Black Lion May 27, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    Just in the effort of full disclosure “jtx” is what we call an “Orly-bot”…So no matter how much evidence we provide or show how wrong his statements or conclusions his mind will never be changed. He along with the rest of the delusional Orly followers still believe that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in this matter. I can understand why Orly does it, she wants the “donations” to keep coming in but you would think that after all of this time and court cases being dismissed they would finally figure out that they don’t have a chance. Or maybe they have figured it out so that is why they keep rehashing things that have already been debunked…You should see those delusional birthers over there, they now want to nominate Orly for the Supreme Court…I was able to get a nice laugh reading that this morning…

  53. avatar
    Black Lion May 27, 2009 at 8:37 am #

    Supporters of President Obama are defenders and supporters of the US Constitution. And that document is what our country is based on. And it states that the only way a sitting President can be removed is by impeachment. The birthers are trying to use the rules of evidentary discovery to help get documents that they hope will support their claims. You birthers have never presented one piece of unrefutable evidence regarding Obama not being born in the US. And now trying to rewrite the citizenship rules is crazy. Since we were kids everyone knows that if you were born int he US then you are a US citizen. This crap about natural born and native born is all a red herring. The birther philosphy is let’s make as many wild accusations as we can and hope that one of them will stick…

  54. avatar
    kimba May 27, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    The big money conservatives agitating the birther movement don’t want Obama removed. They want people like Orly, Swensson, Hale, Berg out there smearing and denigrating Obama as much as possible, as long as possible. The aim is to diminish and discredit every act of his Presidency so that when it is over, they can sit back and say “no one would ever look into it, but the guy was never eligible to be President and nothing he did really counted.” jtx, Truth, Heavy are just useful idiots who can be counted on to parrot whatever is the next piece of the conspiracy that’s dreamed up as their “facts” are refuted. It will never end, but the kapiolana anniversary letter is a big blow I think if it gets around to the birther foot soldiers. The link to that letter is what should be put on billboards.

  55. avatar
    JeffSF May 27, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    “The good General must have been off partying with his drinking/war story buds when the O-borter was waving the bullhorn around spouting off. Perhaps you also missed the video of it (just as the General did apparently).”

    See- I called it! The Orly crowd is quick to pull in military to provide them with some claim to legitimacy, but when a military man disputes them- they claim he must have been off drinking- slandering the same military they claim to support.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    Perhaps next election.

  57. avatar
    James May 27, 2009 at 8:39 pm #

    Obama was born in Kenya!

    From one of the Berg Affidavits:

    “I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at
    the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the
    Provincial Civil Registrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to
    Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with
    an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator
    Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H.
    Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama,
    Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s
    Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information”

  58. avatar
    James May 27, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Divorce record provide evidence of such adoption by stating that Obama was the child of Lolo and Ann Soetoro; meaning he was adopted. If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, then goodbye US citizenship.

  59. avatar
    James May 27, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    Obama is not a “Natural Born” Citizen in context of POTUS Qualifications. In order to be a “Natural Born” citizenship in terms of POTUS, you must be born to 2 US citizenship and be born on US soil. You must be a 2nd Generation American with 100% allegience.

    All caselaw dealing with the concept of “Natural Born” citizenship is irrevelevent because all the persons invovled were ORDINARY citizens.

    The POTUS is a DIFFERENT type of citizen due to powers and abilities granted to the POTUS.

    Therefore, the “Natural Born” citizenship requirement must be gaged at the highest level.

    A good example is of this is consideration the say the son of King George III.

    Suppose King George sneaked to this country and getting with an American woman bore a child.

    If the child is declared a “Natural Born” citizen no real harm to country is done.

    However, if the child were to be made the POTUS, a severe risk to the country exists.

    This would mean that our POTUS’s father would King George III.

    It ridiculious to believe that our founding fathers would have set up the qualifications for POTUS in this manner.

  60. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    No offense Doc – but how in the h… was this site hijacked by the absolute crazies? A healthy debate, even if only one side – this site’s – is based in fact, is one thing, but the comments I’m reading now are just ridiculous.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Ah yes, the Rev Kweli Shuhubia affidavit, signed with a fake name. Notice that the name of the alleged “provincial registrar” is conveniently missing too. Don’t you think it’s a little odd for a public official to be chatting about “top secret” stuff to strangers?

    It boggle the mind what some people will swallow

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    That’s not what the divorce decree says.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    Smedley Butler, USMC warrior, Tim Vegan, Promethius11, Demon Cleaner, KRS-1, Luke, “doc conspiracy, gordon & NBC are the same person!”, “9/11 Was An Inside Job” and “Tear Down the FED” are all the same person.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    James opines: “Obama is not a “Natural Born” Citizen in context of POTUS Qualifications. In order to be a “Natural Born” citizenship in terms of POTUS, you must be born to 2 US citizenship and be born on US soil. You must be a 2nd Generation American with 100% allegience [sic].”

    Please provide legal authority for your statement. (You can’t. Don’t waste your time looking.)

    King George III is a special case. As a foreign head of state he is granted by US law certain immunities, which makes him not fully under the jurisdiction of the United States when he is within our borders and so HIS child (like the child of the British Ambassador) would not be a US Citizen. I’m still waiting for the astute denialist to claim that Barack Obama Sr. was an ambassador.

  65. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 27, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    It’s downright exhausting trying to figure out what they are trying to say. I love they way they just throw out random lies and untruths and then run.

  66. avatar
    James May 27, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    I simply used King George III as an example since he clearly was against USA Interests. Clearly, if a lower metric of “Natural Born” citizen of only being born on US soil is applied to the POTUS, then any child of individuals of who clearly against USA could run as POTUS even if neither parent is US citizen simply by being born on US soil. Clearly, allowing such individuals to run would be a grave threat to the USA. This means the son or daughter of Hilter, Osama Bin Laden, Sadam Hussein could run as POTUS. Clearly is this ridiculious approach. Could the founding father imagine our POTUS maintaining family and personal ties with Hilter, Osama Bin Laden or Hussein? Makes no sense. The only way to prevent this is insure that our POTUS is 100% American and that his Family ties have been routed in American Allegience.

  67. avatar
    James May 27, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    I await the day when the son of Osama Bin Laden (Born on US soil) is elected to POTUS and he decides to invite his father to his ignaguration.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    I think it unlikely that he would be elected, don’t you think?

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    You seem to forget one thing: to become president one must first be elected. The Constitution’s eligibility clause isn’t the only guard against stupid presidential choices. You can offer far-fetched examples all day, but to get any traction here, you need some law (legislation, court decision, etc) and that you lack.

    Come the next election, you can try that argument to persuade voters.

  70. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 27, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    Dr.C

    I think another example we need to worry about is if the US born son of Queen Elizabeth became president!

    Oh it makes me shudder!!

  71. avatar
    NBC May 27, 2009 at 11:28 pm #

    I think another example we need to worry about is if the US born son of Queen Elizabeth became president!

    No need to worry, children whose parents are not bound by US law, such as visiting dignitaries and ambassadors, are not covered by the Constitution.

    Did you know this?

  72. avatar
    richCares May 27, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    James says:
    Obama was born in Kenya!
    on debunking James says:
    Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.
    on debunking James says:
    Obama is not a “Natural Born” Citizen
    on debunking James what will James say?

    is James mentally disabled or hates Obama so much it causes ignorance?

  73. avatar
    NBC May 27, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    The COLB says:

    Obama was born on August 4th, 1961 in Honolulu Hawaii, and his birth was registered 4 days later and announced 9 days later in two Hawaiian newspapers.

    Born in the USA thus natural born citizen.

    QED

  74. avatar
    Ian Gould May 28, 2009 at 6:20 am #

    “The POTUS is a DIFFERENT type of citizen due to powers and abilities granted to the POTUS.

    Therefore, the “Natural Born” citizenship requirement must be gaged at the highest level.”

    Yes, SCOTUS might decide that unlike other NBCs, a Presidential candidate must demonstrate the ability to hop backwards on one foot while yodeling Pi to 5,000 places from memory and juggling a dozen bowling balls,

    If we’re going to make absurd speculations about what the SCOTUS MIGHT decide, why not be creative?

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2009 at 7:09 am #

    I’m concerned about how constitutional eligibility insures that Jesse Ventura can’t become president.

  76. avatar
    James May 28, 2009 at 7:37 am #

    Even if we not to consider Obama’s parents, Obama is still not a “Natural Born” citizen. Because Obama’s father was Kenyan and Subjected to British Nationality Act, any children Obama Sr. had was subjected to the same Act. Hence, Obama was a British Subject at birth. This was admitted by Obama on Fight the Smears.

    What is sigficant about this is that President Matrin Van Buren is considered the first “Natural Born” President:

    “He was the first president to be born an American citizen[2] (his predecessors were born before the revolution);” (From Wiki)

    All Presidents before Van Buren WERE NOT “Natural Born” citizens because they had been born as British Subjects regardless if they were born in the US or not.

    Nevertheless, all previous presidents were allowed to serve because of the Grandfather Clause in the US Constition stipulating that all US citizens at the adoption of the US Constitution were considered eligible.

    Obama was not alive to be able to claim the eligbility under the Grandfather Clause.

  77. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 28, 2009 at 7:58 am #

    His parents were of Dutch descent – but having been born in America prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence would have been considered British subjects. Therefore, he was American because he was born on American soil after the signing, not because of his lineage.

  78. avatar
    James May 28, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    We better watch about Gitmo closing and the terrorists being located to the US. Should one those terrorist somehow get a woman pregnant (US citizen woman or not), then that child will be eligible to be the POTUS. I think it would be awfully scary that the son or daughter of Gitmo terriorist could actually run and if elected by the people would legally eligible to be the POTUS even though the inidvidual’s father is a Gitmo Terrorist.

  79. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 28, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Throwing out illogical scare stories to avoid facing the fact that your assumption regarding Van Buren’s “natural born” status was wrong, is childish. Just accept that if you come to this site you better dot your i’s and cross your t’s ’cause if someone who frequents here doesn’t bust you – the good Doctor will.

  80. avatar
    NBC May 28, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    It’s only through fear and ignorance that James believes he can make his ‘case’ that we should reject Obama as our President.

    I am not sure why.

  81. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 28, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    I live in the South – I’m afraid I know why.

  82. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 28, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    James, just wondering. If a citizen was born in the United States, went to Sweden, and obtained citizenship there, and then returned before reaching majority to claim their status as a citizen, would you call them a “Natural-Born Citizen”? The U.S. Supreme Court did, using those exact words.

    Natural-Born Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with holding any sort of other citizenship, James. It never has, and you can’t cite one case where the Supreme Court has ruled that it did. I can cite cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. Citizenship law operates completely independently of any other citizenship.

  83. avatar
    James May 28, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    Everyone knows Obama was born in Kenya or is an Indonesian Citizen.

    Bill Richardson apparently slipped and let out Washington DC’s Best Kept Secret:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo

    Bill Richardson seemed to reveal one of 2 facts.

    Obama was born in Kenya and immigrated to the US shortly after his birth.

    Obama was an Indonesian Citizen and later immigranted back to the US to live.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    That’s not what he was saying.

    I mean it might be a nice party game to twist stuff to make it different, but it’s no use in deciding what the facts are.

    And “Everyone knows” is an idiotic statement. If “everyone knows” then how did Obama get elected? If “everybody knows” why did the Congress 100% certify the election. Now get back in your padded cell.

  85. avatar
    Chris May 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    Bill Richardson seemed to reveal one of 2 facts.

    This slays me. “One of 2 facts.” Well, if one is a fact, then the other isn’t. It’s certainly quite the paradox if they’re both factual statements. Of course neither of them are true, but I digress. I’m thinking of a quote from the famous philosopher Apu Nahasapeemapetilon: “Thank you, come again.”

  86. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 28, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Because one governor MAY have made a comment that President Obama was an immigrant then that suddenly nullifies a certified cerification of birth? It continues to amaze me how these people will latch on to any small sliver of something that fits their desire.

  87. avatar
    NBC May 28, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    Obama was born in Kenya and immigrated to the US shortly after his birth.

    Obama was an Indonesian Citizen and later immigranted back to the US to live.

    We know that both are untrue, so he must have been referring to something else.

    Geez…

  88. avatar
    Gordon May 28, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    I found out an interesting thing today. Conservative talk show host Michelle Malkin is a Filipino-American. She was born in 1970 in Philadelphia. Her parents are two Filipinos who were in this country on student visas. I wonder what her thoughts are on this NBC controversy.

    Michelle has the traditional Conservative views on immigration, including her desire for laws prohibiting anchor babies being granted automatic citizenship, disregarding the fact that she herself is an anchor baby.

  89. avatar
    misha May 28, 2009 at 10:46 pm #

    “Michelle has the traditional Conservative views on immigration, including her desire for laws prohibiting anchor babies being granted automatic citizenship, disregarding the fact that she herself is an anchor baby.”

    She was raised here in Philly’s Chinatown. I live here because my wife is from Taiwan.

    All those conservatives are hypocrites. I saw the video clip of Limbaugh saying ‘drug abusers should be thrown out of the country, and stripped of their citizenship.’ The conservative movement is riddled with white supremacists, and assorted other kooks. When my wife is not with me, I hear vile things.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 28, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    They’re looking for confirmation, not truth.

  91. avatar
    aarrgghh May 29, 2009 at 12:17 am #

    apparently, there’s some koolaid even michelle won’t drink:

    “i believe trig was born to sarah palin. i believe barack obama was born in hawaii on u.s. soil. i believe fire can melt steel and that bin laden’s jihadi crew — not bush and cheney — perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. what kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?”

    (dec 5 2008)

  92. avatar
    NBC May 29, 2009 at 12:28 am #

    Love that woman. How smart.

    These are refreshening times where we have a President and first Lady who make us proud.

  93. avatar
    Gordon May 29, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    LOL, NBC we’re quoting Michelle Malkin.

  94. avatar
    Ian Gould May 30, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    When Michelle Malkin is the voice of reason, we should be concerned.

    I wonder what Ann Coulter thinks?

  95. avatar
    Nullifidian May 30, 2009 at 9:57 am #

    “I think it would be awfully scary that the son or daughter of Gitmo terriorist could actually run and if elected by the people would legally eligible to be the POTUS even though the inidvidual’s father is a Gitmo Terrorist.”

    So if you don’t reject Barack Obama as the legitimate, lawful president of this heah Yoo-nit-ed States, then the Mooslim terra-ists’ll come to U.S. and impregnate y’all’s women and then their children’ll run for President!

    As I’m not a supporter of Barack Obama, nor on the lunatic right, the only reason I pay any attention to the birther nonsense at all is for the laughs. And I have to thank James for being prepared to bring them for the rest of us.