Despite what birthers say, my experience is that those of us who believe that Barack Obama is an eligible President don’t put much effort into supporting that hypothesis. We it take for granted. What gets folks like me energized is a false or suspect statement of fact and perhaps birthers would be better off letting sleeping dogs lie.
If I and the majority of Americans are right about Obama’s eligibility, then one would expect that the results of careful research would support that theory and work against those who disagree. And from that, one would expect that the more research a birther does, the worse off they are in the evidence department. Indeed there are notable examples where birther research backfired or it goaded opponents to dig deeper and find evidence to refute the birthers, evidence that normally one wouldn’t look for.
I think it was RC who said on his radio program last night that every time the birthers start digging, it turns against them.
For example,
- The newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth in Honolulu, something devastating to the birther mythology, were found by a birther!
- A birther got the infamous tape of Obama’s grandmother saying she was present (somewhere) when Obama was born—a tape that in its entirety emphatically states the the President was born in Hawaii, where his father was living.
- A birther article at The Daily Pen about a 1962 INS report led to the discovery that no US citizen departed from Kenya and arrived by plane in the US during the entire year ending June 30, 1962, covering the period when the birthers claim Obama’s mother gave birth in Kenya and flew back to the US.
- Birthers citing a Hawaiian statute on the registration of out-of-state births led to the discovery that the law was passed in 1982, thereby eliminating the possibility that such registrations were authorized before then.
- Birther Donald Trump finally raised so much media attention that Obama released his long-form birth certificate, cutting the ranks of the birthers almost in half.
- Birthers digging in the Immigration files of Lolo Soetoro and Barack Obama Sr. uncovered contemporary references to Obama’s birth in Honolulu and a State Department report stating that Obama was born in Honolulu.
This lengthy introduction leads us to yet another bit of birther research gone awry. In this case birthers pressing an issue that I looked at before, egged me on to look deeper and discover something inconvenient to birthers.
Birthers located an obscure interpretation of US Nationality law that mentions “native- and natural-born citizen.” The birther argument is that since they are used separately, they most have distinct meaning, and that implies that some persons born citizens in the country (native born) are not natural born. Digging into that claim lead me to look at the law underlying the interpretation and the to discovery that the birthers are wrong. Here’s the argument, and I apologize for it being so tedious.
Let me begin with three statements that I think everyone will agree with:
- Among those citizens born or naturalized in the United States, the only difference under law is that some may run for President or Vice-President and some may not.
- A native-born citizen is a citizen born in the United States.
- Persons born citizens outside of the United States (not born in the United States and not naturalized in the United States) are not entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment, see: Rogers v. Bellei – 401 U.S. 815 (1971). Congress may make and has made laws placing additional requirements on their retention of citizenship.
Let’s look at the INS interpretation: “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation.
One presumes that the dual phrases “native- and natural-born citizen” are reasonably there for some purpose beyond providing convenient dicta for the birthers. What do the birthers think they mean?
Birther definition:
- native born citizen – citizen born in the United States
- natural born citizen – citizen born in the United States to citizen parents
We have already agreed that there is no difference at law between groups defined this way except running for President. Since they are the same under law, then it makes no sense for the INS interpretation to distinguish between them unless the underlying statute does.
On the other hand, consider what I will call the majority opinion of legal scholars and judges:
Majority definition:
- native born citizen – citizen born in the United States
- natural born citizen – US citizen at birth (anywhere)
In this case, the INS interpretation describes two classes of persons who are distinct under law and it makes perfect for the INS to state that the condition applies to both groups.
Does the underlying statute bear this out?
The phrase “a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation” implies in context that this category is covered in the Nationality Act of 1940 or by its immediate successor. We already know that the phrase “natural born citizen” is not in that Act, nor any in any legislation in the US Code; however let’s see what the 1940 Act says about repatriation of women who lost their citizenship upon marrying an alien who was ineligible for citizenship.
The following is from pages 10-11 of the PDF (link above). There is nothing in the section about the woman’s parents, and therefore nothing to support the phrase “natural born citizen” by the birther’s definition. However, the Act does say:
(b) (1) From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage, shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.
The birther interpretation of “native- and natural-born citizen” would exclude women born citizens overseas, but that is clearly contradictory to the act which says only “citizen … at birth.” In order for the INS interpretation to match the statute, “native- and natural-born citizen” must include women who were born citizens outside the United States who are clearly not native-born, and hence must be natural born.
Here’s another one from 1997 for you to consider:
One commenter noted that the word “adoption” should be deleted in reference to the supporting documentation mentioned in 8 CFR 301.1(a) because section 301(h) does not include adopted children and only covers natural-born children. The Services agrees and has removed the word “adoption” from § 301.1(a)(1).
What is described in 301(h)?
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
That certainly doesn’t sound like “two citizen parents and born in the US.”
The list of Birther research that backfired is even longer. Last year I wrote about Eugene Bielinski from Wisconsin. Mr. Bielinski was the person who obtained Stanley Ann’s transcript from the University of Washington in 1961 that should she started in September 1961 not August as had been reported and was enrolled in correspondence to boot. He also contacted the University of Hawaii and obtained records that Barack Obama’s father was enrolled in summer classes at in 1961 (and by inference could not have made any trip to Kenya). http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/birthers-keep-digging-and-finding-more-proof-more-proof-that-they-are-wrong/#comments
Then there is the [redacted] certificate that put the nail in the coffin of the birth certificate numbering controversy. That was produced by WND in an attempt to bolster Paul Irey’s crackpot typography analysis. Lucas Smith aided Jerome Corsi on that one by publishing birth announcements for the entire month of August.
I would think this would be a natural thing – there are probably a great number of former birthers, who, after being educated at WND or Free Republic, talk to a better informed person. Whether or not the conversation is face to face or on a site like this one, that should cause at least some birthers to do a little digging, if only to prove the things they’ve been told are correct.
When they find evidence they publish it. That evidence may or not may prove their point – that doesn’t matter. That person might leave the birther ranks, finding out their premises are wrong. Or that person might double down, and become more insistent that up is down, and left is right.
So it doesn’t surprise me that the search for evidence for has led to evidence against.
Interesting take on the USCIS (formerly INS) interpretation docs. It would be helpful to get all the USCIS and older (pre 2008) INS docs that refer to both native born and natural born citizenship, particularly anything that actually defines the terms, rather than simply referring to them, as Interpretation 324.2 does. If anybody finds anything like this, please post the links.
At this point, many (if not most) Birthers who comment on WND, ORYR, etc. are just pretending to believe that the president isn’t eligible or are just pretending to question his eligibility. They are trying to create an issue out of thin air and hoping others will join in the false outrage, tribal party — they’re swiftboating. Birtherism gives them a group to be a part of while at the same time it allows them to say they’re neither a Democrat nor Republican.
Here’s another one from 1997 for you to consider:
Acquisition of Citizenship; Equal Treatment of Women in Conferring Citizenship on Children Born Abroad [62 FR 39926] [FR 28-97] . It says:
What is described in 301(h)?
That certainly doesn’t sound like “two citizen parents and born in the US.”
Most of the answers to the “questions” Birthers ask can be easily googled. That’s how you can tell that their questions are merely agitprop.
And the only Birther concerns that haven’t been addressed are the new ones they make up on a daily basis.
I don’t think you can get anywhere through this approach. Let me cite this from the Foreign Affairs Manual from 1998 (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency)
Based on that, nothing that you find in the INS interpretations is necessarily applicable to the question you’re trying to answer.
What I find instructive about the section linked above is that it never discusses anyone born in the United States in terms of Presidential eligibility, only addressing the foreign born. This is because there exists an almost universal consensus in the professional community that those born citizens in the United States are eligible.
The problem, Jerry, is that legal terms of art are, often, never defined, either in statute or case law. That is because they are terms where the meaning is simply a given, established and known to those in the field. So what you are asking for is something that really isn’t going to be there. But i have a feeling you knew that already.
Doesn’t really matter. The supreme court has made clear they mean the same thing over and over. Wong Kim Ark clearly defines both terms by the English common law. These statutes do not define the terms and, even if they did, such would have no affect on the Supreme Court’s definition. How many Obama cases have courts rejected the two-parent argument. 6 or 7? These courts will just keep citing Wong Kim Ark as judges actually know how to read case law. I would hope no lawyer submit your nonsense to a court, as the dishonesty and misrepresentation of law is so extensive they might lose their license.
In case you actually want to be educated, the dicta in Calvin’s Case about infidels was rejected in the harshest terms by later English jurists. Littleton said it was a “common error founded on a groundless opinion” of Justice Brooke. Lord Mansfield called such notion “absurd” and when such point was raised by counsel he said not to quote such passage “for the honour of Lord Coke.” Such doctrine was trashed in in cases like Wells v. Williams and Omnichnd v. Barker. One court said it was painful to comment on this doctrine of Lord Coke and that such doctrine was disgraceful “to the memory of a great man.” Later legal reports of Calvin’s Case actually had a footnote saying such propostion was an error.
for example, form 1826:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SzlFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=coke+%22justice+brooke%22+%22common+error%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OM4iT7GOKMna0QGXnr3aCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=infidels&f=false
Thus, while the core holding of Calvin’s Case remained the law of England into the 20th century, the dicta on infidels did not survive the 17th century. It is simply an historical fact that “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were conflated in the early republic and no one on either side of the Atlantic thought such terms excluded infidels. Naturalization acts, however, were allowed to discriminate as such power was deemed plenary. For example, the chinese were exluded from naturalization until the 20th century primarily because they were infidels. Copying Donofrio’s nonsense will get you nowhere.
I don’t know, Bob, I just see a lot of rehash. Every time I see something new to me, a quick search reveals it to be stale droppings.
No shame in that. True inspiration is truly rare. The shame is in the mindless flogging, and the endemic, endless declarations of “I found a shiny!” from birthers with short memories.
A birther also got us the memo from the Johnson State Department telling us that Obama was born on August 4th 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii the memo was from 1967.
Also lets not forget the birthers dug up the Edith Coates certificate showing the signature of registrar Lee being the same as on Obama’s BC.
Then there was the birthers who destroyed their own Certificate numbering theory when they released then tried to redact the Lee certificate.
Birthers destroyed their own claim that Obama took the certificate number of a dead infant when we found that the number was way off and she was born in a different hospital and different city.
However, they are willing to turn on their supposed “evidence” if they can find some angle.
To this day there are people claiming that “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” wasn’t named as such in 1961. That basically throws out the Nordyke birth certificates, but I don’t think any of them really cares as long as they can score points.
Mr. Collette isn’t a lawyer, and I have the feeling that he is still learning.
AGREED!
I agree with the first statement in Bob’s premise and as to his second point, agree with what JPotter mentioned.
Most of their “new” daily claims are just trotting out the same long dead horses over and over again, as if the Birthers live in some bizarre constant “Groundhog Day” state. For some of these Birthers, the time it takes for them to return to pulling out an already debunked argument as if it was “new” again is measured in months or weeks…in the truly disingenuous and pathetic…it can be a matter of only days…or sadly even less…
Which is why most of the “new” amounts to not much more than some variation on the old…. or diving into some new irrelevant side-tangent of minutae on an already dead avenue.
Which leaves only the most bizarre sensationalized whoppers for them to resort to… but they’ve already gone down many of the classic tabloid trash routes already: alien, gay, Malcom X, murders, manchurian candidate, secret spy programs, secret time travel bases on Mars….
…So they’ve pretty much played out even those angles. There isn’t much left for “new” for them to try to pull in their smear campaign goals. What is left – ties to Elvis, Bigfoot and Batboy?
Doc C – Many of your posters here have brought up some excellent additional examples of where Birthers have only succeeded in providing the info that further confirms Obama’s story.
I hope you will update this article to add their additional material. I think this will become one of the more important reference articles to use going forward and it would be nice to see it kept updated to make it as comprehensive a reference resource as possible.
Thanks in advance!
That’s sometimes true. On the other hand, sometimes even what a person is defined. It’d be nice to see the definitions, if they exist(ed). Without looking, none of really know for sure.
A simple rule: If someone runs for President and none of the opposing candidates contests his eligibility either in court or in speeches/debates and the majority of voters votes for him and Congress certifies the election and the Chief Justice (a member of the other party) swears him in, then he is a natural born citizen. So at least in the case of a small number of people (all who have served as President and Vice President since the grandfather clause expired) you can know for sure.
Honorable mention, or, well, some kind of mention, should go to those birthers like Linda Jordan who have described in detail how they committed fraud while trying to dig up information about the President’s Social Security Number.
As I read the posts on this forum it is clear that the people who post here actually believe that AKA Obama is eligible to be president. I really can’t see how that is possible but I suppose stranger things have happened.
My big question to you is “Is that a good thing?” After all that has transpired do you wish ehe was not eleigible so that he could be removed from office and all of the legislation that he signed would be null and void? Or do you thing our country has benefited from his administration? If you beleive he is eligible and that he is good for the country I can only be perplexed.
Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?
Why aren’t the polls on the birth certificate issue 100% in favor of AKA Obama practicing the virtue of full disclosure? It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else. I guess there is a significant portion of the population who are opposed to releasing AKA Obama’s history because they are afraid of what it will reveal. I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth just like AKA Obama.
If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.
If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.
If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama.
Obama will be exposed –Don’t get caught on the wrong side of this issue
If you can’t muster up the respect for the Office to refer to him as “President Obama,” you don’t deserve any kind of response. “AKA Obama” isn’t going to cut it around here.
Grow up, and we can talk.
“Any day now, any day now…”
Like everything you say, this is unsupported by any legal authority. I wonder why people who know nothing about law pretend they are experts.
Because the right wing is full of people full of hate for which facts don’t matter.
You have to produce acutal evidence that there is something to investigate. Obama has provided more evidence where he was born than anyone in history. Where is your call for the republican candidates to provide any evidence? When the government of the states of their birth publicly back their place of birth to the extent that Obama’s home state has, let us know.
We are waiting. The problem is people like you who clearly have no understanding of law keep misrepresenting what the courts have said on this issue. Anyone who does not recognize that Wong Kim Ark decided this issue long ago is simply misleading the public. No competant lawyer would say otherwise. At this point since court after court and authority and authority have pointed this out, people claiming otherwise are purposely misleading people. Why are you misleading the people on a topic you cleary don’t understand? Maybe you should take a few night classes in law so you have a little understanding of the issues.
Perplex away, Mein Freunden.
Thanks for being transparent about your deisres, and that this is for you an exercise in denial.
Guess what? If he confesses tomorrow and resigns, or is deposed, or arrested, or impeached, or whatever …. the last 3 years stand. He has been the President. Biden would take the reigns and the gov’t would continue on.
Again, happy to be perplexing you!
So…..Sammie whines and calls the President a poopy head and somehow that is supposed to overturn the will of the people, the Electoral College votes, Congress, the Constitutional, Constitutional law and the Supreme Court…..
Yes the delusion is strong here and guess what…..won’t and never will change a damn thing.
Oh and Sammie did yiu catch the latest CNN poll
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/cnn-poll-obama-leads-romney-and-santorum-in-november-showdowns/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/03/28/rel3d.pdf
Seems that Mr Obama, AKA the President currently has double digit leads over any GOP candidate in a contest for President…54% to 43% over Mittens, 55% – 42% over the frothy exudate.
Seems the REAL people, unlike the Birthers seem more than satisfied with the President.and are far more likley to vote him in for a second term….So what then for you and your fellow travellers
The answer is simple: President Obama has been shown to be a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth on US soil.
Is his election ‘a good thing’? Perhaps not for individual people who have come to hate what they believe he stands for, but I do believe our Nation is better of.
What is important is that his election is an expression of our Nation’s freedom to choose as its leader someone whom we believe best represents our needs and beliefs. That is a good thing by itself, even if our Nation, occasionally gets it wrong.
Why should one be calling for an investigation of a person who by all credible sources is a natural born citizen? Why do you fear him so much that you are willing to abandon logic, reason and our Constitution in pursuit of your fears?
Care to explain?
Oh, and a few more things…
Like a lot or birthers, you confuse two completely different, unrelated issues. The President’s eligibility has nothing to do with whether you agree with his policies or not. Why birthers keep trying to argue that those of us in the reality-based non-birther camp automatically agree with everything the President does is beyond me. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney never made any indication that they plan to make birtherism an issue in the upcoming election, and none of them ever asked to see the President’s birth certificate. None of them have ever expressed any concern that the state of Hawaii might be lying, or that the dozens of federal judges who have tossed birther lawsuits were somehow “corrupt” or “dishonest.” Do they agree with everything the President has done so far?
Additionally, if the President were removed from office, nothing he did while President would be null and void. That you even believe that makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously.
Another classic birther lapse in logic. If you really think the President is “hiding something” then how would you know exactly what it is? It’s hidden! If it’s hidden then that means that you don’t know where “it” is and that you probably haven’t seen this “it,” whatever it is. The fact that you personally believe the President is hiding something doesn’t make it true, and the fact that you personally dislike the President doesn’t mean that he’s ineligible to hold office.
Here is what Rmoney has releaed so far:
1 year of tax returns (which shows extensive use of tax dodges and forein bankk accounts). Obama has released returns back to 2000
No b.c. (I ask again,, was he born in Canada?)
No school records
No passport records
Hid records from time as Governor by using private EMail accounts contrary to state laws
No records of time at Bain (they are privately held and don’t have to fiile with SEC)
No statement of forgiveness from his dog for the ride on the roof
So, I guess you will stay home on election day?
Yes, that is absolutely true.
Also – there is no AKA here. Obama is his name and has been such since birth.
Simple. The limitation here is you, not reality. You simply suffer from an extreme pre-conceived bias, which makes you internally unwilling to accept what happened. You cannot reconcile your own personal cognitive dissonance and have had to reinforce your own walls of self-deception to maintain your illusions, that’s all.
There is nothing strange about the President being President and being who they have always said they are. That is typical.
Yes, I think it has been a good thing and a vast improvement over the prior administration. No President or his administration is every perfect, but it is also completely unrealistic to expect such. I certainly prefer the direction he is trying to take the country. I also don’t see any alternative being offered that is in the least bit pragmatic, believable nor appealing. Therefore, I continue to prefer his approach overall and continue to see him as my best and only credible option in the fall.
You are free to be “perplexed” about that all you want. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes. You have the freedom to vote the way you wish and to have different preferences; as do I.
All you are offering here is a FALSE premise, based on an assumption that is nothing more than idle speculation.
I simply counter that there is ZERO credible evidence that he is “hiding” anything at all. As that is NOT a given, your whole premise collapses without that.
Therefore YES, he will serve out his full first term…and with a good chance of being rewarded with a second term as well. There is NO reasonable expectation that he is “hiding” anything that would change that and therefore there is no reasonable reason to expect that he won’t finish his first term at all.
Only those like you with prejudiced minds who assume a default of guilty instead of innocent make that flawed mistake. As that mentality is the complete opposite of everything our nation stands for – the presumption of innocence UNTIL proven guilty – those who foolishly leap to such unfounded conclusions will succeed in nothing more than endlessly making fools of themselves…
*yawn* This is nothing but a well worn-out weak Concern Trolling tactic with no teeth to it.
Real concerns of disclosure apply to matters of public GOVERNMENT record, NOT personal records. Even within the sphere of government business, there are many legitimate areas as to which disclosure doesn’t even apply there either – issues of protecting national security, for instance.
EVERYONE’s private records are meant to be protected under our laws. The problem with folks like you is that you demand a level of invasion of personal privacy against Obama as an individual that you would never apply to EVERYONE…and certainly would NOT be happy to have your personal privacy challenged and violated in that way yourself.
FAIL. Again, now you are just being silly and desperately attempting very weak and obvious Concern Trolling arguments.
Simple answer: Us Non-Birthers consider the issue to have been long settled. That includes those that have no desire or plan to vote for Obama as well as those that would vote for him.
There is ZERO “fear” of any “reveal”. Every actual “reveal” has simply told us what we’ve heard all along – Born in HONOLULU, HI and NBC. Most of us were satisfied with the answer the first time we saw it. Getting the same answer over and over again doesn’t make any of us develop irrational concerns that *poof* somehow that answer will “magically” change…
There is ZERO reason to tolerate Birther nonsense, just as there is ZERO reason to waste time entertaining challenges to the Earth being round or disputes that water is wet.
Your insincere and exceedingly desperate attempts to make an issue, where there is no real issue or concern at all, are correctly falling on deaf ears. The only folks who have been on the WRONG side of the issue since day one is YOU Birthers. But hey, at least you remain consistent. So keep failing in the courts and EVERY attempt you make. In the meantime, every day you wake up, Obama remains President and will continue to do so, until he has served out the term(s) that the American public has chosen him to serve.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that London Bridge was sold to Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Shlould they decide to sell it, it would be a perfectly legitimate transaction.
There are many bridges in the desert and flash flooding is quite common, as I know from hiking in Arizona. Your knowledge of geography is as bad as your knowledge of everything ellse.
Can anyone point me to when and where any of the GOP Candidates released their birth certificates proving to the public at large, they are Natural Born Citizens?
PS. All birthers who have voted in the primary’s thus far are hypocrites.
PPS. I am the furthest thing from an Obama supporter.
I assume that you mean the current crop of candidates. Donald Trump released several and if memory serves me right, some reporters got hold of Michele Bachmann’s certificate because her state has open records.
No, he only released IMAGES of various “birth certificates”. The director of the NYC Dept of Health NEVER confirmed what Trump released, as Hawaii did with Obama. Bachmann’s certificate was seen by a few reporters, but I certainly never saw it. They would still have a long way to go to satisfy a fair-minded birther (if there was such a creature).
And as you note the current crop has released bupkis. Zilch. Nada. Where is Sam Sewell?
If you are asking if a false charge of ineligibility would be a “good thing” (and I think that’s what you’re asking) then I would say no. Generally lies are a bad thing, and removing a President on trumped-up charges would be an incredibly bad precedent.
If Obama were really deserving of removal, there is a process for that; it’s called impeachment.
I suggest you call Larry Klayman up and ask him to explain the defacto officer doctrine to you. Removing a person from office for ineligibility does not erase their acts in office. And you might also want to note that the only mechanism for dealing with an ineligible President is when the votes of the electoral college are counted. The courts have no authority to remove a President.
You know the poll numbers as well as I do. Pretending to be amazed that there is anybody who thinks Obama is doing OK is silly, and you will never score any points here by acting silly.
And, by the way, you still haven’t made your original Mensa pin available for verification by a forensic office supply expert.
Nizhny Novgorod?
BTW, I just filed my federal taxes and I paid a lower percentage than Romney. 😛
Many of us, particularly the conservatives and moderates (and there are more than a few here), do not connect the eligibility issue with President Obama’s performance in office.
Also, why do you claim any legislation he signed would be null and void? Do you believe the “de facto officer doctrine” doesn’t apply for some reason?
You are the one claiming he’s hiding significant things. Like what?
Looking good so far, with less than a year to go.
Most people think Obama HAS disclosed his birth certificates (2 of them). Anti-birthers believe it has been settled. Having spent quite a bit of time researching Obama’s background (I compiled the Fogbow pages on people who remembered Obama), I can’t figure out what you claim he’s hiding.
Not all bridges cross waterways. There are bridges over rails, roads, gullies, canyons, canals, pedestrian bridges, all kinds of bridges exist in the desert.
I’m on the right side of the issue. You, on the other hand, have a room with your name on the door at the FEMA camp not very far from you. Can you hear the black helicopters yet? Any day now.
Heck – there’s a major river crossing the desert in the western US – the Colorado River. There are dozens of bridges (Navajo Bridge, Glen Canyon Bridge, Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge, etc.) that cross the Colorado River in desert areas of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and California.
http://bridgehunter.com/category/waterway/colorado-river/
The New Aswan Bridge crosses the Nile, and it’s basically desert on both ends.
http://en.structurae.de/photos/index.cfm?JS=76846
Sam, if you don’t have something to add to the current article, please put off-topic remarks on the Open Thread (see Open Mike in the right sidebar to link to it). This is a common courtesy that I expect of all who comment here. I presume that since you didn’t comment on the current article, you unable to find anything to say against its conclusions.
Gee, ya think?
And haha “AKA Obama”, so clever! *eyeroll*
Just like a birther, trying to sell nonexistent property that they foolishly bought themselves.
Hey, embrace being perplexed! That’s progress.
Agreed. 😉
Actually, it looks pretty certain that Chester Allen Arthur wasn’t qualified. Sometimes people get away with things. That doesn’t mean that they are right.
I think you’re both operating on faith. From what I can see, until we see the original Hawaii birth docs, if they exist, we won’t really know for sure.
Come back when yoou produce documents on all the other Presidents and this year’s contenders.
No, Chester Alan Arthur was qualified. I would advise you not to come to my neck of the woods (Albany, NY) and say anything against him-he is a hometown boy and we like him a lot here. He is buried just down the street from me. On his tomb it says he was President. Just like it says on George Washington’s and Abraham Lincoln’s and like it will say on Obama’s. 4 Presidents. All qualified.
Nope. Again, it looks like your understanding of an issue goes no further than being colored by gullibly buying into recent internet stories that have been sold to you as a package of revisionist history goods.
The whole shebang of rumours about Chester Arthur have been looked into as well, and have mostly come up wanting. Doc C. has spent quite a bit of real time looking into this issue and actually looking at writings from the time, instead of just relying on the latest internet rumours.
Here are some links to all of the articles on here on that topic. Please educate yourself before simply spouting off on stuff that you really don’t know or understand very well:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/arthur-whoswho/
Why don’t you ask the ONLY actual authority on the matter of HI BCs and see what they say and if they validate it?
Oh, that is right, they already have. Repeatedly. In detail – attesting to the creation of the LFBC and describing the entire chain of custody in doing so as well.
In fact, they are so open and public in validating Obama’s BCs that they’ve devoted an entire page of their official website to providing answers on the matter and providing source links to both their own written statements of testimony to this effect, as well as pointing to the image of the BC on the White House website as being a correct representation of their records.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
So all of this has been answered already, by the only officials qualified to give such answers with certainty. But I bet you won’t bother to go there or actually read all of that, will you? Face it, you simply don’t want to hear the truth and will go to great lengths to ignore it…
As someone who does not want to see Obama re-elected, the birthers are really pissing me off. They actually are doing more harm than good. They will start driving away moderates in droves. If Obama is able to paint the bulk of the GOP as super-crazy (both parties are crazy, let’s face it), he will win.
As someone who is a Chicago Cubs fan, I really appreciate the birthers. They actually make the Cubs run of futility of 0 for 103 years actually seem pretty insiginificant. (The only question is can the birthers match the fulitity of the Washington Generals?)
The Supreme Court, and indeed every other court that has addressed the issue, has said you are wrong. Some people like to make up their own law. Kind of sad really. Why are you pretending to understand anything about law?
Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010);
Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”);
Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party, Arizona Superior Court (March 7, 2012) (order dismissing complaint)(“[A]nd this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”)
Farrar et al v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Feb. 3, 2012) (Ga. Office of State Admin. Hearings) (relying on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels to hold that Obama is natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States);
Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);
Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);
Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted).
Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)( “All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States”)
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), (“She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States..”)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), (“A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established”);
Lou Goon Hop v. Dulles, 119 F. Supp. 808 (US: Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 1954)(“It is not denied that the person who it is claimed is the plaintiff’s father is a natural born citizen of the United States, having been born in this country”).
Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”)
United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) (“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)
Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency”)
United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931) (“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more”)
Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)(“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency”).
And you know what? That’s fine. The constitution does not contain a requirement that “Jerry Collette must know for sure.” There is no requirement that there be absolute certainty, that the country stop in its tracks while we solve the ternal mysteries of absolute truth. Shockingly, Congress has even passed laws without 100% yea votes.
As John Stuart Mill said: “There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life.”
The Hawaii Dept of Health says that the WH website image is a faithful reproduction of the information from the original file. That’s well beyond anything they’d normally do for someone with a birth certificate.
In case you didn’t already know, that’s how these things work. My kid was born in California. I have multiple certified copies of the California Certificate of Live Birth. All are somewhat pixelated as if they came from a FAX-quality scan. They print them up and place a seal on them so that the final custodian of records doesn’t have to go through the whole nasty process of pulling up an original paper document. Or in the case of electronic birth registration, the “original” is never really an original. They get backed up repeatedly, and the chain of custody is what vouches for the accuracy of the birth information.
Somehow, this certfied copy has been good enough for the US State Department to issue a passport and passport card in my kid’s name. A photocopy of a certified copy was good enough for other government agencies (long story). I certainly hope that when it comes time for school enrollment, we don’t have to drag a school administrator to Sacramento to try and get a look at the original document we signed just after birth. Or when it comes time for a driver license, that we don’t have to drag a DMV employee to the same archives. I’m also trying to imagine the backup they’ll have in an otherwise understaffed office.
‘scuse me while I whip this out.
I can completely respect your position, on several levels.
As a long suffering Cleveland Indians fan, my heart knowingly goes out to you as a Cubs fan.
In terms of politics, I truly wish that folks like you had a party that still could represent your interests. Sadly, the GOP has already done extensive damage to drive away too many moderates. The Birthers just take it too a level of ugly silliness beyond what is already out there that not only pours salt on an already open wound, but makes the sore swell with smelly pus. The stench that the Birthers pile on the existing festering wound is so particularly odious that it can cause even the typical too-busy or disinterested to be aware of politics folks to want to stay far away from your party as well.
The Washington Generals actually won 6 games out of the 13,000 or so that they played. I seriously doubt that if you gave Orly Taitz 13,000 trials she would win even 1. But I hope some one stops her long before that.
As for the birthers and the GOP, I’m sorry, but the birthers are only the beginning of the crazy in today’s party. And I have to dispute that there is anyone in the Democratic party (among elected officials) that is even approaching crazy. They are, by any freasonable standard, a centrist group.
lol
*crowd ducks* 😀
I had someone close to me who doubted everything, even her own perceptions. She would say, how do I know that anything is real? How do I know that by taking a step, I am not crushing the heads of my children? It was actually impossible to convince her of anything, even that the sun was in the sky. It literally got so bad that she could no longer function for long periods of time. Fortunately she responded to drug therapy and now lives a normal life.
There is healthy skepticism and then there is pathological anxiety and I tell that story to give an extreme example to help make a point, not to suggest that birthers are suffering from a mental disease but to suggest that some level of doubt is unhealthy.
Birthers exhibit an essential and irrational distrust of authority. Normal people would trust Obama to say where was born. A skeptic might wait until they read Obama was born in Honolulu in the Honolulu newspaper, or saw it in the Britannica. Certainly the Hawaii Department of Health’s statement that Obama was born in Hawaii is as far as any normal person would go with skepticism.
Birthers, on the other hand, act like my mentally ill friend, with an insatiable demand for more proof, as if proof where the problem.
Historian Richard Hofstadter identified what he called the “paranoid style” to describe how conspiracy theorists think. He doesn’t say that conspiracy theorists are paranoid, only that they act that way. I spent some time in the conspiracy theory literature a few months back. One of the brain wiring deficiencies in conspiracy theorists that Michael Shermer identified in his book, The Believing Brain, is a decreased ability to discard nonsensical connections. Conspiracy theorists will perceive patterns in random data, when in actuality the patterns are not there. The excuses Birthers make to continue their doubts are nonsense, and they can’t seen them as nonsense.
I rarely waste my time writhing things like this to individuals because I know that it is virtually impossible for someone inside the conspiracy theory to snap out of it. However, you seem like a much more reasonable fellow, and it may be that you have just been hanging around with the wrong people, and not being exposed to a more common-sense, factual way of looking at the problem.
I’m embarrassed that it took me so much head banging before I placed the reference.
So, just how many years have you been predicting that “OMG” moment anyway???
Well, I did get a copy of Dreams from My Father. I didn’t particularly like the book, but it was probably the most candid and revealing autobiography I have ever read.
I frankly do not under your pathological desire to know every scrap about Obama’s personal life. The man has been in office over 3 years now. You know what kind of President he makes. Why all the anxiety over a looming disaster that resides solely in your imagination? Why the apocalyptic rhetoric and the threats? Have you ever had your thyroid checked?
I think I detect a whiff of eau-de-taxdodger here.
Welcome to the site Mr. McCulloch. Can you tell my why a Google image search for London Bridge returns a bazillion hits for Tower Bridge, a few for London Arch rock in Australia, and exactly one for London Bridge?
Is this your idea of ‘full transparency’ when negotiating a bridge sale?
What exactly was not known before the election?
That his father was not a citizen? I am pretty darn sure that that was discussed ad-infinitum in his autobiography.
When we first moved to Arizona we lived in Phoenix for three (miserable) years. My favorite Sunday drive was down to the citrus orchards south of the Salt RIver which was dry almost all of the time (dams on the Gila and Salt upstream captured all the water). As I recall, the main road just went across the river bed because they hadn’t got around to bridging it yet, and since there was almost never any water in the river anymore, they didn’t care much.
But there was an old two lane bridge further downstream which was fun to cross because of the signs the highway department had put up. The one on the southbound side said “No fishing from bridge”, on the northbound side it said “No diving from bridge”.
Humor can be very dry in the desert.
When we first moved to Arizona we lived in Phoenix for three (miserable) years. My favorite Sunday drive was down to the citrus orchards south of the Salt RIver which was dry almost all of the time (dams on the Gila and Salt upstream captured all the water). As I recall, the main road just went across the river bed because they hadn’t got around to bridging it yet, and since there was almost never any water in the river anymore, they didn’t care much.
But there was an old two lane bridge further downstream which was fun to cross because of the signs the highway department had put up. The one on the southbound side said “No fishing from bridge”, on the northbound side it said “No diving from bridge”.
Humor can be very dry in the desert.
I like that.
futzed by the back button again. sorry about that.
depends, i’d say. if the hawaii dept of health reported that obama wasn’t born there, birfers would cite the them as scripture. (of course, then we’d have to stop accusing them of being paranoid …)
and despite shurf joe’s naked opportunism and corruption, he’s still a duly elected law officer and birfers are ready to be lead by the nose wherever that tinpot fascist wants to take them.
in a paranoid’s universe, a trusted authority is whomever confirms their paranoia.
Wow! That captured the essence of their thinking so perfectly! I’m going to post this on my whiteboard for my quote of the month.
Absolutely brilliant and well phrased! KUDOS!!!
It is rather childlike, ain’t it? Comforting blankie of acceptance is preferable to reality’s cold shoulder.
in fact, i’ll go further and remind everybody just how pathetic birfers have been in their nonstop attempts to anoint any duly recognized authority as their “messiah” (to steal a wingnuttism).
all they need, as they keep telling themselves, is just one judge or journalist or statesman or general to storm the white house and lead them back to the holy land …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmnKOkt7fI&feature=player_embedded
Wow, video of Obama’s arrival and speech in Cushing, OK! It was a very cloudy day … very convincing post-processing 😉
Under the right circumstances, beach front property in the swamp could potentially be a good investment. As an example:
In Michigan, back around 1873, some enterprising folk though came up with the idea of connecting a larger inland lake to Lake Michigan by way of a nearby river connected to the inland lake by an outlet. Where they may have demonstrated skill in vision, their engineering skills were lacking Somebody neglected to consider that Lake Michigan was substantially lower in elevation. Upon the opening of the outlet, a torrent of water rushed out of the lake (and, in one telling I heard, killed a pig and upset a wagon).
Obviously, they did not succeed in making an navigable inland waterway, however, there was a consequence that benefited the area. The lake itself, before the “tragedy” was surrounded by steep hills and a swamp area on the east end. After the disaster, the reducing of the lakes size left a sandy beach around the whole lake. The formerly swampy east end now has an entire village with a wonderful sandy beach that is popular during the summer tourist season.
See, swamp land as a beach front investment can pay off. Unless you are pig farmer, I suppose.
I know. I tried to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge, but they refused.
No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.
“As someone who does not want to see Obama re-elected” Have Gary Johnson as the GOP candidate, and I’ll sign up tomorrow.
“They actually are doing more harm than good.” I know, and am grateful. Intrade has Obama at 60%, as I write.
Blazing Saddles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmnKOkt7fI
I learned that from “Falling Down” …. whoops, better not mention that flick around birthers. Ach, too late.
From my own travels, I’d say they are as common in the desert as anywhere else. The streams and rivers may be dry, but when it rains, it rages. Every ditch and gully has to be bridged. My favorite are the ancient railway trestles all over western Kansas / eastern Colorado.
Gary johnson has been convicted of embezzlement … oh, wrong Gary Johnson. I was thinking of local ex-superintendent of schools. Also a Red, btw.
I also have an uncle by that name. Haven’t seen him in forever.
As for inland beach-front property, I have one word for you young man: “rising sea levels”. OK, that was 3 words, but my retirement plans include the possibility of my house in Albany being beachfront one day…
That will change. The Obama campaign will actually begin at some point…
Though one could say it’s never wrong to shut up while you’re winning. 😉
Any day now ….. any day now ….. 😉
Interesting analogy. The Generals don’t actually play to win as far as I understand it. I’ve often teased birthers with the claim Orly is losing on purpose, since no-one can really be *that* stupid (she would lose on the merits all the time, but she always manages to screw up at preliminary stages such as “effecting proper service”, though one would expect her to learn).
Hey Jerry, long time-no see. Maybe you should ask yourself what would motivate GOP governor Linda Lingle, her appointee Chiyome Fukino, and civil-service lifer Dr. Alvin Onaka to risk prison, poverty, disgrace, and the loss of their pensions to involve themselves in a Vast Conspiracy to forge documents for a political candidate. If you think it’s money, ask yourself how much. This should give you an avenue of investigation. You’ll have to do it yourself, as no government agency is going to do it just because someone has suspicions but no evidence, while there’s plenty of counter-evidence.