This blog has published definitions before including:

• Defining Natural Born Citizen
• Natural Born Citizen: Defined! (from a legal dictionary)

Unfortunately my original article is far too long to fit the 1500 character limit of the Urban Dictionary, and in any case, I want something short and easy to read. So here is a draft for comment. Keep in mind that the following is just 38 characters under the limit, so I can’t add anything substantial without removing something else.

A US Circuit Court said “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.” US v. Rhodes (1866). This principle has been cited approvingly by subsequent courts including the US Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that said:

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, … The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

Every nation has the exclusive right to determine by its own laws who are its citizens and who shall rule it, and therefore the Constitution and laws of the US (and no other country) determine who is born within its allegiance.

Current law would include as natural born citizens:

• All persons born within the US (including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands) except the children of ambassadors
• Persons born outside of the US to citizen parents (subject to certain restrictions in the legislation).

Full details of current law are included in the US State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 7, Section 1100 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

Perhaps as an example I could add:

A legal dictionary from 1904 said:

“Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf.  Ch. 584,  2 Kent,  Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.”

Update!

The above definition was submitted to the Urban Dictionary and was rejected by the editors (the Urban Dictionary is edited by anybody that signs up to be an editor–all that is required is a valid email address) without explanation. However another accurate and concise definition was submitted and accepted. It has been well received, and I support it.

Our guest commentator has doubts, and responds to When will the Birthers be happy?

RESPONSE: Interesting to note that, before the issue seemed such a potential publicity boon, WND reported that its own experts determined the COLB to be authentic:

“OBAMA’S CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH UTILIZING FORGERY EXPERTS ALSO FOUND THE DOCUMENT TO BE AUTHENTIC. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

WND also reported that the claims that Obama lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child is not supported by US citizenship law:

“In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child [ITALICS IN ORIGINAL(Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law)END ITALICS]; may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. ….

RESPONSE: Mel Martinez was RIGHT in contending that, at least at the first instance, Presidential candidates are – and should be – vetted by the voters.

As eloquently stated in Sen. McCain’s Motion to Dismiss Hamblin v. Obama (D. Az.):

“The Constitution indicates that issues relating to a candidate’s eligibility for the Office of President rest, in the first instance, with the VOTERS and then with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, the constitutionally created body responsible for selecting the President of the United States. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” electors for the President and Vice President; id. amend. XXIII, § 1. The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President subsumes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. If a court were to sit in judgment of a candidate’s qualifications, its judgment could “inappropriately interfer[e]” with the Electoral College’s constitutional authority to elect the President and to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates seeking that office. …

“The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with CONGRESS. Where no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Constitution commits to the House of Representatives the authority to select the President and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates’ qualifications. See 8 U.S. Const.. amend. XII. Similarly, the Twentieth Amendment explicitly grants Congress the responsibility for selecting a President when a candidate elected by the Electoral College does not satisfy the Constitution’s eligibility requirements. See id. 11 amend. XX, § 3 …

“Both the House and Senate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide questions relating to presidential elections. …

“The Constitution therefore provides that, in the first instance, the selection of the President – and the evaluation of a candidate’s qualifications – should be made by the VOTERS and politically accountable bodies without judicial participation. VOTERS and electors can choose not to vote for a candidate they believe to be ineligible, and members of Congress can object to electoral votes as they are counted. 3 U.S.C. § 15. IF A COURT WERE TO PASS UPON THE ELIGIBILITY OF A CANDIDATE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT – A DETERMINATION RESERVED FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND CONGRESS – IT MAY INVOLVE ITSELF IN POLITICAL MATTERS FOR WHICH IT IS INSTITUTIONALLY ILL-SUITED, AND INTERFERE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND CONGRESS TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

“Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs [the] Court[s] to refrain from superseding the judgments of voters and those governmental bodies the Constitution designates as the proper forums for determining McCain’s eligibility to hold office. If the Court were to make this determination – as it must to resolve Hamblin’s claims – it risks disrupting the Constitution’s carefully calibrated separation of powers – “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government.” ….

See http://tiny.cc/MonNBC @ 8-10 (some internal citations omitted for readability).

RESPONSE: The article has the facts completely backwards. Once again, reading the source rather than someone’s characterization of the source is useful.

The fact is that Obama Executive Order 13479 **expanded** access to Presidential Records by

(a) revoking Bush’s Executive Order 13222 that limited access to Presidential Records, and
(b) restoring Reagan’s Executive Order 12667.

Source:
Obama Executive Order 13489 @ http://tiny.cc/EO13489
—>Note Sec. 6: “Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.”

Bush Executive Order 13233 @ http://tiny.cc/EO13223
—>Note Sec. 6: Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989, is revoked.

Reagan Executive Order 12667 @ http://tiny.cc/EO12667

RESPONSE:

A. There is, to date, no facts or evidence to prove that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. (Notably, the article fails to cite any such evidence.) Moreover, even if he was adopted under Indonesian law, that law simply could NOT strip his US citizenship. See http://tiny.cc/WYE_Indonesia for more on that issue.

B. The US State Department has, officially – “in court” (i.e., while subject to under Rule 11 penalties), declared that Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro and never became an Indonesian citizen. See, e.g., ¶37-38, 48, 50 @ http://tiny.cc/StrunkGovAns

RESPONSE:

A. There is, to date, no facts or evidence that Indonesian law at the time did not allow for dual citizenship. (Again, the articles cites to no such evidence.) This “theory” was originally offered by Phil Berg, with multiple “citations” to Indonesian law. However, if one actually READS the laws he cites (the ones that exist), those laws simply do not say what he says they say. See http://tiny.cc/OC_Indonesia for more info.

B. Moreover, whatever Indonesian law at the time (or today), the fact is that US law determines US citizenship and under US law, a minor cannot lose his citizenship merely by virtue of his relocation, the adoption by a non-US citizen, or even his parent’s attempt to “renounce” his citizenship. See http://tiny.cc/WYE_Indonesia for more info.

C. The US State Department has, officially – “in court” (i.e., while subject to under Rule 11 penalties), declared that Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro and never became an Indonesian citizen. See, e.g., ¶37-38, 48, 50 @ http://tiny.cc/StrunkGovAns

RESPONSE:

This is a “red herring,” given that (a) Indonesian law does not provide what the article contents it provides and (b) regardless of what Indonesian law provides, that country cannot “trump” US law on the issue of who, under US law, is a US citizen.

RESPONSE: Notably, there is no citation to any alleged “credible evidence” of an Ann Durham trip to Kenya while pregnant with Obama? If you have some, I’d love to see it.

RESPONSE:
A. Obama’s Kenyan STEP-grandmother was misquoted (and a recording clipped to say) that Obama was born in Africa when, in fact, she repeatedly and emphatically stated (on the same FULL recording) that Obama was born in Hawaii. See http://tiny.cc/SOSpeaks

B. The US State Department has, officially – “in court” (i.e., while subject to under Rule 11 penalties), declared that Obama was born within the state of Hawaii and NOT in Kenya. See ¶36 at http://tiny.cc/StrunkGovAns

RESPONSE

This is a perfect example of the type of inaccuracies contained throughout this and other articles challenging Obama’s eligibility based on flawed facts and flawed reasoning.

A. Federalist No 68 does NOT include your purported Hamilton quote. READ IT!!! http://tiny.cc/Fed68 That quote is simply *not* there.

The article attributes to Alexander Hamilton a statement made by Balint Vazonyi, Director of Center for the American Founding, in connection with a 2000 push to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens (i.e., naturalized) to become President. (See http://tiny.cc/NotFed68 at page 22.)

B. In any event, “Grow from the soil” is a reference to jus solis, the principle that citizenship is based on LOCATION of birth – as opposed to jus sanguinis, the principle that citizenship is based on PARENTAGE.

See, e.g., Jus Solis @ http://tiny.cc/JusSolBD compared to Jus Sanguinis @ http://tiny.cc/JusSangBD

C. The fact is that throughout the history of US jurisprudence, with the exception of cases now overturned, harshly criticized, and/or abrograted by statute (e.g., Dred Scott), legal scholarship has consistently, overwhelmingly held that a “natural born” or “native born” citizen (used interchangably) means born in the USA – regardless of parentage.

See compendium of legal scholarship at http://tiny.cc/NBCDefined. See also compendium of US Supreme Court cases on the issue at http://tiny.cc/SCtonNBC and more at http://tiny.cc/OC_NBC

For more information on “Natural Born Citizen” and Vattel, oft-quoted in this and other similar articles, see http://tiny.cc/OC_Vattel & http://tiny.cc/OC_Vattel2

———QUERY———

IF … “natural born citizen” really means “born of two US citizen parents,” and if Wong Kim Ark (http://tiny.cc/WKA) does not stand for the proposition that a person born in the US is a natural (or native) born citizen regardless of his parents …
THEN, … why did so many conservative groups file briefs in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) strongly urging the Supreme Court to “reverse” 100 years of jurisprudence to find that birthright citizenship means born of two US parents? I mean, if the issue is settled, as this and other similar articles seem to contend, why would the groups be asking the Supreme Court to “reverse” current law? And if “born US citizen” means something different than “natural born” citizen, why did these briefs advocate for reversal of Wong, and adoption of the dicta in Happersett?

RESPONSE

A. I agree that “originalists” look to founders’ intent. (This does not, however, mean that only original intent is applicable, but that’s another issue.)

B. An “originalist” starts with applicable laws – common law and statutory law – in effect at time of the particular law at issue. Yet the article totally ignores that, as discussed rather extensively in Lynch v. Clarke, the law of ALL THIRTEEN colonies, and ALL THIRTEEN states at the time of the Revolution and drafting of the Constitution provided that a person born OF THE SOIL (of colony or state) was a natural born citizen regardless of that person’s parentage:

“It may then be safely assumed, that at the Declaration of Independence, by the law of each and all the thirteen states, a child born within their territory and liegeance respectively, became thereby a citizen of the state of which he was a native.

This continued unchanged to the time when our National Constitution went into full operation. There is no evidence of any alteration of the rule in any of the states during the period that intervened; and the references which will be made under another head, show conclusively that there had been no intermediate change to their policy.”

http://tiny.cc/NBC_OI. at pp. 243-44.

The court continued:

“It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States …. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws … it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. THE ENTIRE SILENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN REGARD TO IT FURNISHES A STRONG CONFIRMATION, NOT ONLY THAT THE EXISTING LAW OF THE STATES WAS ENTIRELY UNIFORM, BUT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO ABROGATE OR CHANGE IT. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. ….”
—————–
http://tiny.cc/NBC_OI at pp. 246 (emphasis supplied).

Dr. Conspiracy

“Well, it’s not quite as simple as all that and the sooner we can all be satisfied that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen, the better. To postpone that finding for a year or two and then find, conclusively, that Obama is not eligible to serve as president would be disastrous.”

That question was settled the day Congress certified Obama’s election as President. Those of us who eat and breathe this subject have tracked every doubt back to its foundation in — well, its foundation in nothing.

The main piece of evidence Obama was born in  Kenya is a tape recording attested to by a fake-named African con man which if listened to in full to says Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s followed by the incredible fantasy that Hawaii will happily give anybody body anywhere a birth certificate that says they are born in Hawaii (citing laws that didn’t exist at the time, and which don’t say what is claimed). And of course the fake named document expert who signed his affidavit in California “XXXXXXXXXXXX”.

Then there is the demonstrably false assertion Obama became a citizen of Indonesia — something impossible BOTH under Indonesian and US law. And the demonstrably false urban legend that Obama traveled to Pakistan under a non US passport because of a travel ban — despite US State Department documents that say there was no travel ban, or even a difficulty to go to Pakistan.

Then there is the creation out of thin air of a “two citizen parents rule” for a president, based on some Swiss philosopher, and flying in the face of all the laws, court decisions, and scholarly writing that exists by Americans.

I’m sorry, mass hysteria is not a constitutional crisis. It is a mental health crisis, and a lack of basic skills in critical thinking.

I’ve spent hundreds of hours compiling facts and evidence to make this clear, trying to find every possible approach to rescue folks from the spell of disinformation. I’m now getting around 400 visitors every day. If you have an open mind, check out the evidence. If you have made up your mind, then no investigation or court decision will make any difference.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org

Orly's Recent Post by "Linda O" Proclaims Proof that Obama used the name Barry Soetoro at Occidental.

FALSE.  The biography makes no mention of his last name or any alleged use of the Soetoro name. The biography simply states

"She accepted Obama the way he was. He did not have to put on an act for her. She was one of the first to call him Barack instead of Barry. She said Barack was a beautiful name."

Obama, per reports, was called Barry by his friends and family from infancy - before he moved to Indonesia - and until, at Occidental, he made the decision to go by his birth name.

FALSE.  The biography also makes no mention of any use of an Indonesian passport and, in the fact that people began to call him Barack rather than the nickname Barry has no relevance whatsoever to what passport Obama may have used.

MISLEADING.  The International Herald Tribu*n*e article merely stated the well-known and undisputed fact that friends and family called Obama "Barry" rather than "Barack" from early childhood until, at Occidental, he made the decision to go by his birth name. It makes no mention whatsoever of any last name used.

FALSE.  The LA Times Article merely stated the well-known and undisputed fact that friends and family called Obama "Barry" rather than "Barack" from early childhood until, at Occidental, he made the decision to go by his birth name. It makes no mention whatsoever of any last name used.

FALSE.  The Occidental College article merely stated the well-known and undisputed fact that friends and family called Obama "Barry" rather than "Barack" from early childhood until, at Occidental, he made the decision to go by his birth name. It makes no mention whatsoever of any last name used.

MISLEADING. According to the Verdugo Monthly article, Tom Moyers was just recalling the well-known and undisputed fact that friends and family called Obama "Barry" rather than "Barack" from early childhood until, at Occidental, he made the decision to go by his birth name. It makes no mention whatsoever of any last name used.

FALSE/UNSUBSTANTIATED. Not a single person of the many interviewed, as reported in the links above, recalled Obama using the name "Barry Soetoro." Every person recalled him being called "Barry." If any had recalled him using a different last name, it is unreasonable to say that they failed to mention that aspect entirely.

There is no credible information whatsoever that Obama ever used and Indonesian passport. The law - of both Indonesia and the US - at the time precluded him from becoming an Indonesian citizen and from losing his US citizenship and the allegation that a US travel ban re: Pakistan has been thorougly debunked by reference to official US State Department records.

HILARIOUS. After citing the "Regina story" as "proof" that Obama was called "Barry," she now says that she doesn't believe the story.  This is not unexpected. She and others selectively quote from the AP photo of Obama's Indonesian School Records, which indicates that his mother or step-father listed his citizenship as Indonsian -- while rejecting the statement a few lines away that indicates that he was born in Hawaii.

Ms. Stuter continues her record of continually publishing provably inaccurate information as “true” and “undisputed fact.” Let’s take a look at her latest missive.

Lamenting that Congress certified President Obama as President-Elect, accepting the Electoral College vote, Ms. Stuter then purports to cite a list of “undisputed facts” – as follows:

FALSE. This statement is belied by the introductory paragraph of Stuter’s own article! As she notes, Congress – without objection – unanimously certified the Electoral College Vote for Obama. In so doing, under Amendment 20, Congress certified that Obama is eligible to serve. Were he not eligible, such objection would have been raised.

Moreover, all states followed state law regarding the process for certifying candidates for the ballot. Obama and/or the DNC complied with all documentation requirements proving his eligibility to serve.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE. As shown by Fukino’s Press Release, two people recently saw, touched, and examined Obama’s vault copy. (As stated by Fukino’s press spokesperson following that release, Fukino’s statement meant that yes, Obama was born in Hawaii.)

Additionally, at least some Hawaii Health Bureau officials saw Obama’s original birth certificate in 1961, as reflected in the official Health Bureau Statistics records, published in August 1961, shown here and here.

Finally, although to be sure, no Senator, Representative, or other person has held a press conference or appeared on radio/TV shows to tout as much. However, this does not mean that none of them have actually seen, touched, or examined the certificate. It merely means that they did not feel the need to hold a press conference to that effect.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE. Although the COLB is a computer-generated document, if certified by official Hawaii DOH seal, it is prima facie evidence of the information contained therein.  Moreover, a certified Hawaii COLB is acceptable proof of US citizenship for all state and federal purposes, including proving citizenship to obtain a US Passport. [Source:  US State Department Passport Process - Birth Certificate - Hawaii - Hawaii DOH]

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE. Obama never sat on the board of the Annenberg Foundation.  He sat on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, one of hundreds of organizations funded by the Annenberg Foundation — whose surviving benefactor endorsed McCain in the 2008 election. [Source, with links to original sources.]

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

MISLEADING. It is true that Hawaii has the referenced law.  However, that law was passed in 1982, long after Obama was born (“[L. 1982.]“). Thus, it is irrelevant whether Obama’s mother “met” any requirements set forth therein – the law simply didn’t exist at the time.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE/MISLEADING. It is true, based on all credible evidence, that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is also true that at birth, his father was a British subject.

However, it is false that dual citizenship precludes Obama from eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.

It is also true that the U.S. Supreme Court” cited to Vattel’s treatise, THE LAW OF NATIONS, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898). However, what Stuter fails to note is that – well – the dissent in that case:

• It was the dissenting opinion – not the majority opinion – that referenced Vattel’s work (as representative of one group’s views during the pre-Revolutionary period) (at p. 708);

• The Court (majority)  rejected the “citizenship by parentage” rule (i.e., the view set forth by Vattel), holding that Wong Kim was a citizen at birth (i.e., a natural born citizen; not a naturalized citizen), because he was born in the US, and even though his two parents were Chinese subject. (at p. 705).

In other words, in Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that a person born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents not a natural born citizen — the very same argument Stuter continues to make.

Stuter refers to plural “cases.”  Given that she fails to identify the cases, it’s difficult to determine what other case she may be referencing.

Note also that in the only case to directly consider this specific issues – presidential eligibility of a person born in the US to non-citizen parents, the court emphatically stated that such person qualifies to be president. In Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 246-47, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844), the court stated, in dicta:

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. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. This IF/THEN statement is based on a false assumption. As discussed above, all credible information (some of which is summarized here) indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii and, under applicable law, that makes him a “natural born citizen” eligible under Article II of the Constitution. See also, #8, below.

FALSE/MISLEADING. Stuter refers to an early part of a taped interview, and to affidavits reporting those selected parts (and other information).  However, if one listens to the entire so-called “Grandmother Tape,” (particularly 5:50-8:00), it is clear that Obama’s step-grandmother stated that Obama (Jr.) was born in Hawaii.  See also here, here, and here for additional information regarding the alleged Kenyan birth.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE/UNSUBSTANTIATED. Stuter refers to a comment on a bulletin board, reflecting the now widely-discredited API story about a so-called “API-Michelle Tape.” Though promised in late October, no such tape has ever surfaced and there is no credible evidence that it exists. See also this recent post about a group of former “API-believers.”

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

TRUE. According to the AP photo of the school registration page, Obama was listed as an Indonesian citizen, and as Barry Soetoro. Note also that according to that same photo, Obama’s birthplace was listed as Hawaii.  Thus, to the extent Stuter relies on this document as evidence of any alleged Indonesian adoption, its clear statement that Obama was born in Hawaii deserves the same weight.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

TRUE. Irrelevant to Obama’s citizenship, but the divorce papers did show on minor child and one child over 18.

FALSE. First, whatever Obama’s parent/step-parent elected to include on his school registration form, Indonesian law in 1962 prevented Obama from becoming an Indonesian citizen, as discussed in this article and, therefore, Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen even if Soetoro had adopted him.

Second, US law in 1962 prevented Obama from losing his US citizenship, regardless of any actions taken by his parent and/or step-parent in Indonesia, as discussed here and here.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE/UNSUBSTANTIATED. There is no credible evidence that Obama was legally adopted by Soetoro.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. The fact that Obama Sr., a Kenyan native, listed his race as “African” in no way calls into question the validity of the COLB.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. As discussed above, all credible information indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii and, under applicable law, that makes him a “natural born citizen” eligible under Article II of the Constitution.

FALSE. This claim has been clearly and unequivocally debunked by, among others, Jeff Schreiber at America’sRight.com here; see also here.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. If such records are not available, it is impossible to determine what they might say. Stuter makes nefarious assumptions based on the fact that, like McCain and other candidates, Obama did not release all prior records to the public during the campaign.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. PajamasMedia has confirmed with US officials that Obama registered for the draft. Thus, the IF/THEN statement is based on a false assumption.

Thus, at a minimum, this is a disputed allegation. Stuter’s contention that it is undisputed fact is false.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. This IF/THEN statement is based on a false assumption. As discussed above, all credible information indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii and, under applicable law, that makes him a “natural born citizen” eligible under Article II of the Constitution.

FALSE ASSUMPTION. This IF/THEN statement is based on a false assumption. As discussed above, all credible information indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii and, under applicable law, that makes him a “natural born citizen” eligible under Article II of the Constitution.