Obama Citizenship Denial (OCD)

I have written exhaustively about Obama Citizenship Denial (OCD) in another forum and under another name. I want to put a few summary thoughts here. Some links have been added in comments.

I don’t pay much attention to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists view the world differently from others. Events have different causes; people have different motives. Given the huge number of people in the world, one would reasonably expect some to have fringe ideas, and some to have significant deficits in Critical Thinking. Both seem to be the case with OCD.

OCD is characterized by people believing things that are not well-documented and not believing things that are. They see everything through the filter of one thing, and so ignore all but one piece of evidence.

Part of the problem is the lawyer Philip J. Berg of Philadelphia. He filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama, the Federal Elections Commission and The Democratic National Committee with the United States District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania  alleging all sorts of things including fraud, but all focusing one way or another on an allegation that Barack Obama was not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Berg himself is a lawyer, and he should know better. The briefs Berg filed are a farce, citing as evidence the Inside Edition television program and the Italian Wikipedia. Berg makes spurious legal arguments, makes wide ranging speculation for which there is no proof, cites anonymous witnesses, and blatantly misstates the law. Some people, because this is a Federal lawsuit, believe that the facts he states must be true, and in there lies the rub.

Berg is a real piece of work and so is his lawsuit. I would not be at all surprised to see Berg disciplined for his frivolous suit, his shoddy legal work and his public lies. But whatever comes of Berg, some will believe he wrote the truth.

I have seen people who believe things for which they have no evidence besides somebody’s blog. I have seen people believe they are experts without the most rudimentary evidentiary basis.

So much time and energy wasted on this hoax.

About Kevin

Just an old guy with opinions that I like to bounce off other people.
This entry was posted in Educational Reports, Obama Citizenship Denial, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Obama Citizenship Denial (OCD)

  1. TRUTH says:

    First, how many times can you say “real piece of work” in one article?

    The fact of Obama being legal or not is secondary. Primary is the fact he WILL NOT show his Birth Certificate to the proper authorities. What you saw, or THINK you saw, is called a COLB(Cert. of Live Birth), which is going to a courthouse, having them fill out a piece of blank paper stating that yes this person was born. The PIECE OF PAPER your referred to as a B.C. is just that, nothing official, so your wrong there.

    NOW, when asked to show his B.C., lets assume it is completely legitimate, WHY NOT show it then? I have a Real one, if I need to show it I xerox a copy of it and Here ya Go. Or if I wanted to show it to you I’d black out personnel blocks, leaving enough proof that its real for you to read. But I DO NOT go after a COLB, that is not official for anything I have done, and SURELY NOT good enough to be the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES. This isn’t the Cub Scouts. And don’t give me that “the Hawaii officials verified there is a birth certificate in the vault” b/s. Saying it exists and Showing it are two different things.

    If I had to bet, I’d say he is legit. But that doesn’t waiver the necessity to prove it, which he Has Not Done. This isn’t just MY feelings, or Conservatives, it is required of the United States Constitution. You have heard of that document? So bottom line to your line of reasoning is ignore the Constitution? ALL of the differences aside between Your side and Mine, What is the Legal Requirement and What has me met thus far? 2 out of 3 isn’t enough. SHOW the Document, Prove your Legal Mr. Harvard grad, and lets move forward. .. . yet, he hasn’t dont it…for some reason….why not?

  2. Kevin says:

    Definitely too many “pieces of work”–one removed.

    Let me correct some misconceptions in your comment.

    First as to qualifications, I have served on a national committee for the prevention of vital records fraud and have worked in several states on electronic birth certificate systems (EBC). I currently serve on a national committee for setting standards for electronic birth registration transactions and am on a first-name basis with several state registrars. I have over 30 years in this field. I do not ask you to accept what I say based on this claim of credentials, but I do ask that you don’t just dismiss what follows out of hand because you think you know better.

    The Obama birth certificate, pictured on FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) and other places, is an official document that is acceptable for any legal purpose in the United States to prove name at birth, date of birth, parentage and place of birth. The document has these characteristics:

    It states that it is a “Certification of Live Birth”.
    It has the signature (stamp) of the Hawaii State Registrar (Alvin T. Onaka)
    It has the raised seal of the State of Hawaii

    This is as “official” as any birth certificate in the United States.

    The Obama document really isn’t what you said. It is the official Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. It says that Barack Hussein Obama II was born. It also says that he was born on August 4, 1961. It further says that the “City, Town or Location of Birth” is “Honolulu” and that his birth was duly registered at the State on August 8, 1961 (which is pretty fast for the paperwork to get completed at the hospital and logged by the state). It is signed and sealed by the individual in the State of Hawaii legally authorized to make such certifications.

    The document that Obama provided which is the ONLY type of document you can order from the State of Hawaii (see order form at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf) will not only get you in the Boy Scouts, but it will get you a US Passport including a statement on that passport that you are a citizen. See the US State Department Passport Application page at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html, which says “A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth.”

    So in summary:

    I have shown you that Obama has provided a birth certificate that is good enough to get a US passport. I have shown you an official document, signed by the lawful official in the State of Hawaii, that states Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu. I have shown you that no other type of certificate can be ordered from the State of Hawaii. The idea that Obama hasn’t provided his real birth certificate is simply false.

    It is true that the hospital would have filled out a form back in 1961 and sent it to the state, who would have stamped it with a number and stuck it in a file (usually called the “long form”). It is also true that if you ordered a birth certificate a few years ago, or if you order one today from a state that doesn’t have an electronic system, you will get a photo copy onto security paper of that originally registered hospital record, and this copy will have the state seal added to it along with the signature of the lawful Registrar–this is what is called a “certified copy”. However, the State Registrar’s certification of that document in 1961 has no more legal force than the State Registrar in 2007 signing a document attesting to the essential facts in that other document. It is also true that the long form has more information on it than the abstracted computer record. But the computer record has the essential facts, namely the name, date and place of birth of Barack Obama. Nothing else is relevant to the Constitutional requirements to be president.

  3. B. Wilby says:

    If the Supreme Court doesn’t pick up the Obama Non-Citizen ball and run with it, the liberal left-wing conspiracy nutcases and the now-in-hiding media together will beat this matter to death.

    And, George Soros will finally get his wish- Come January 20, 2009 it will be President George Soros and his Obama Howdy Doody doll.

  4. Kevin says:

    Why would the liberal left-wingers want to touch this with a 10-foot pole? Obama is their guy. Right-wing web sites are the ones beating this to death.

  5. TRUTH says:

    Not sure I follow Wilbys thinking. No offense Wilby, its probably me.

    Impressive credentials Kevin. In the case of what you do(did), I believe that for you have nothing to gain by saying all that if it weren’t true. In the case of Mr. Obama, he has a LOT to gain, or should I say a LOT to lose otherwise. But do I NOT believe him, no… I DON’T KNOW is my problem. It has been asked of him to present the actual original document, to which he has denied doing.

    Ok, I hear you loud and clear as far as the document he did present, and that you feel that is all necessary to prove such. Nonetheless, many many other people want to see the real one, yet he refuses to show it. Maybe if YOU talked to each and every one of them you could convince them otherwise, but something tells me that isn’t feasible. haha. Leaving us back to, they want to see the Original, or at least a Certified Copy of it. I think at this point, and I am just speculating, but I imagine they are going to want someone to go into the records department and put eyes on the original. On the other hand, I’ll bet this entire thing gets swept under the carpet and laughed at. Is THAT the Right thing to be done? Not in my opinion it isn’t. Whether 1 million citizens or 1 citizen asks, I think it need be made public so NOBODY ever again will question his qualification.

    Have you heard the radio interview the last few days of the Kenyan Ambassador. “Mike in the Morning”. Just something to make you go Hmmmmm. It is 19minutes long, click ahead to 11 minutes if your short on time, otherwise it goes fast.

    http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

  6. Kevin says:

    Yes I did hear (actually I read the transcript) of the Kenyan Ambassador on Mike in the Morning. I think that he was talking about the place of Obama’s birth lineage, not his physical birth place. The “Obama Grandmother” tape floating around says Obama was born in Mombassa, but the Ambassador seems to say that the place is where his grandmother still lives, a remote village. Obama cannot be born in two widely separated Kenyan locations. I think this is just a misunderstanding. I assume that the whole thing is not a hoax either.

  7. TRUTH says:

    I find it hard to speak on that, even as much as I would like to believe it to be quite honest. You just never know, maybe Grandma is just saying he was born there because she is proud of him and doesn’t realize the implication of it, knowing it isn’t true. BUT, “Maybe” she knows what she is talking about. Who the heck knows? Ask Mr. Obama, he’ll give her a pass once, then throw her under the bus the second time like ole Pastor Wright.

    As for the Ambassador, there again what can you believe? He is another proud Kenyan that is talking from hearsay more than likely, and not from facts that he KNOWS to be facts. Again, stuff I would like to believe yes, but I unfortunately in addition to being a conservative, am a Realist. I won’t believe stuff just because I read or hear it. But it doesn’t mean I won’t question some things. And as your well aware Kevin, if it has to do with conforming to our Constitution, I Question it. [ smile ]

  8. Kevin says:

    The grandmother tape is something I want to look at it. As I understand it, the grandmother interview was carried out by transatlantic phone. I cannot understand much of it. YouTube has the tape with a transcript on the screen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo. The only person who can corroborate that it was Obama’s grandmother on the other end is pseudo-named (“to protect his safety”). So what we have here is a translation of someone claimed by an anonymous source to be Obama’s grandmother over the phone saying (if you believe the transcript) that she was present at his birth.

    The tape is highly suspicious though. As far as I know, this tape is the only evidence Obama was born in Kenya, yet this American “Anabaptist bishop” questions her as if he already KNOWS Obama was born in Kenya and that it is really the main purpose of the call, to get her to say he was born in Kenya. It makes no sense to me. If we had video of the real person saying this and it had come up in conversation, it might be believable, but the audio interview is contrived to provide a context just for asking the birth question. It seems a trick or a fake to me.

  9. TRUTH says:

    You make good points. I REALLY hope no idiots are out there making stuff up like that. I don’t want false stories to interfere with him having to show his real Birth Certificate, another whole story we cover in the other blog..haha.

  10. Ted says:

    On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU

  11. Kevin says:

    On December 5, the Supreme Court will meet informally to discuss the list of cases before them that they might look at further, including the petition for writ of certiorari from Leo Donofrio. They might decide to hear the Donofrio appeal and put it on the calendar for sometime next year and after hearing arguments next year, they might rule on it maybe next spring at which time they would either let the lower court ruling stand (and the case is forever dismissed) or they will send the case back to the lower court to be heard on the merits.

    The chance that the Supreme Court will hear the appeal is pretty close to zero. The chance of Donofrio winning in the lower court is much closer to zero. The chance of the decision December 5 being pivotal is is vanishingly small.

    Since Donofrio is a total crank, his suit has a snowball’s chance in the core of the sun. The news media is giving it all the coverage it merits — none.

    I feel sorry for the people who have fallen victim to the professional political operatives who trick unsuspecting people into feeling anxiety where none is warranted.

    For further information on the Supreme Courts writ of certiorari process, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/10.html and http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/2101.html

  12. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    Read your blogs. The heart of the issue is what the founding fathers meant by ‘natural born’. Review the history, understand the time it was written, read about United States citizens press ganged on British warships because the were born ‘British Subjects’. The impetus for ‘natural born’, in simple terms, as it applies to the President and Vice President appears to mean that they NEVER could have had any loyalties other than the US, except if they were born before 1790. Clearly this distinguishes a ‘naturalized’ (claiming oath to the US) to ‘Natural Born’ (never had another government). You will note that I give no opinion on BO qualifications or his documentation. I believe that the Founding Fathers meant that any future head of the executive branch would have to be free of foriegn entanglements from birth. Being born on US soil gives you birth claim on US citizenship, but you are NOT ‘Natural Born’ (as applies to POTUS) unless your birth loyalties are not contested/claimed by a foriegn government.
    I think that it is important to remember the constitution also states that the President/Vice President MUST PROVE that they meet the requirements. Therefore, the burdeon of proof rests squarely on BO and the DNC, not Berg or any other “total Crank” that questions them.
    I don’t know how all of this is going to turn out. History is in the making, as this is perhaps one of the most interesting constitutional challenges of my lifetime. I am not brilliant, but if I can see that, so can the Justices.

  13. Kevin says:

    Hi Pete,

    You will have to show me where in the Constitution it says that a President most prove that he meets the requirements to be President.

    I’ve visited half a dozen law school web sites and every one says that “born in the US” is the no-brainer way to meet the natural born citizen clause. Controversy only arises for those that are not. Most competent authorities say “natural born” means “citizen at birth”.

    It stretches credibility to say that Barack Obama, who never lived in Kenya or Great Britain, and who hardly knew his father has a “foreign entanglement”, nor how British law has the power to make someone ineligible to be President of the United States. And I wonder just how many former Presidents of the United States had dual citizenship at birth.

    How it is going to turn out is that Barack Hussein Obama II will be inaugurated President next January, and no court is going to decide anything.

  14. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    With all due respect, skip the ‘born on US soil’ simplified version and get back to the ‘intent’ of the founding fathers. Remember, unless it is an Amendment, you cannot change the original Constitution. The later laws passed that gave citizenship to those born on US soil, yet still recognized that they may have entanglements to other governments. My grandfather was born on US soil in 1906, while his parents were visiting from another country. He could, and did, later claim US citizenship by birth and thus did not have to be naturalized. He had ‘birth’ entanglements, so could NEVER have been POTUS. The Founding Fathers were resolute to ensure the POTUS to be free of any such foriegn claims from birth. I note that many blogers and law reviews fail to mention the qualifier that discusses conflict of citizenship status that are possible.

    http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/24/home-run-the-scotus-case-that-defines-a-naturla-born-citizen/

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html

    Many intellectuals have been attempting to force a vote for Constitutional change on ‘natural born’, including many law schools. However, until the law is changed the SCOTUS will have to ‘interpret’ the original intent. That interpretation will likely exclude Dual Citizens at Birth, such as my Grandfather.

    I understand your feeling of ‘stretching credibility’, but I wasn’t a Founding Father of the Constitution. I am certainly not questioning anyones loyalty, especially my Grandfather who fought two years in the Phillipines in WWII (yes he was drafted at age 38). I don’t feel that naturalized, or natural born citizens with entanglements, are ‘second class’ citizens. I just feel that the Constitution states they are not eligible for POTUS.

    I feel the need to address the last statement you made. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, make no mistake, the SCOTUS is the last word.

  15. Kevin says:

    Pete,

    You seem perfectly comfortable ignoring the Constitutional role of the legislature to fill in the operational details of the government while at the same time giving extra-Constitutional commentary the same force as the Constitution. I find it silly on the face of it that, given the fact that EVERY ONE OF THE FOUNDERS WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN, that they felt that a wisp of such citizen should disqualify one forever from becoming President. George Washington was a British citizen. Adams was a British citizen. Rutledge was a British citizen. Franklin was a British citizen. Jefferson was a British citizen. Pinckney was a British citizen (BOTH). Hamilton was a British Citizen.

    It’s very dangerous to go down the “intent” road. We don’t have the transcript of the debate over the Constitution and we do not know if one founder who believed in this “foreign entanglements” theory did not negotiate that away to get something else. Just because a founder thought something, does not mean he believed that thought survived in the finished document.

    Now if you want a “founders” argument, how about this one: It is clear to me that the writers of the 14th Amendment clearly wanted to make anyone born in the United States a natural born citizen, because it set up the two classes of citizenship. those born and those naturalized.

    As a rule, I don’t debate third parties. If you want to make an argument (which you have not yet done), then you may do so here. Don’t tell me to go read somebody else’s opinion and debate that, cause I don’t have time to debunk all the web sites on the Internet. I did look at the first one, and I marvel at your nerve to cite a racist civil-war era opinion like that (you might as well be citing Dred Scott!). The other was far too long to waste time on.

    While the Supreme Court could have the last word, they will not choose to do so. As a rule the Court does not accept crank filings like Donofrio.

    [PS. I fixed your link]

  16. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    You are correct, the first 8 presidents were former British Subjects. That is why the constitution has the, ‘1790 phrase’ as a qualifier of ‘Natural Born’. The text of the 14th amendment is provided below:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

    Please educate me on where it changes or defines the Constitional requirement of POTUS, as reqards to Natural born. The 14th amendement clearly did not address the issue of ‘natural born’ as it pertains to POTUS. I don’t see any words to that effect, and interpretation of the law is up to the SCOTUS, especially if it overturns prior constitutional language. US law is still based upon precedent, for good or bad, and therefore prior rulings will be considered by the SCOTUS.

    I think we will likely just have to agree to disagree on the 14th amendment. Considering your interpretation of the 14th amendement makes this scenario possible: A child of the king of England was born on US soil, by a visiting pregnant queen (of Dual US and English citizenship) who remained on US soil for 5 years after the birth. Then that child could become monarch of a foriegn country and US president? IMHO the Founding Fathers examined this possibility and definitely said NO! Natural born means you can not have been born with any country claiming you as a citizen except the US. The 14th amendment did not change that requirement, only specified who is US citizen and what rights are transferred by that.

    You have to admit, that even remote possibility of a POTUS being claimed/or claiming to be citizen of a foriegn country, is repugnant. The implications for the republic are to dire to even address here, should this ever happen. The POTUS can not serve two masters.

    Thank you very much for fixing my link, I don’t blog much and my skills are lacking.

  17. Kevin says:

    The 14th Amendment per se doesn’t define “natural born” but I think that a stronger argument of intent could be made for it than can be made for Article 2.

    You give the extreme example of the son of the British Monarch. I give the extreme example of Barack Obama who has only a technical tie to the UK. You seem to be of the opinion that the Constitution must resolve these extreme examples with a general rule. I think that we have a better way to handle these odd situations: hold an election.

    If I admitted “that even remote possibility of a POTUS being claimed/or claiming to be citizen of a foriegn country, is repugnant” then I would have to find it repugnant that Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison were president (we’re talking “repugnance” not “qualifications).

    The United States is a nation of immigrants. To demean their contributions, or to question their loyalty is what I find repugnant.

  18. Truth says:

    Good Afternoon Kevin,

    And thank you Pete for relieving me of my duty, and doing a much better job of it that I. 🙂 I don’t know a fraction of the information either of you know, but I’m learning and appreciate the great conversations.

    Back to work.. ttyl

  19. Pete says:

    You note correctly that I give an “extreme” example of what happens if you ignore “natural born”. I cannot claim credit for this example, the founding fathers actually thought this example up. Historical documents at the time suggest that they were truly afraid of this. The Constitution has language here, like it or not, that applies and prevents this scenerio. There is a process to change the Constitution, but it isn’t election by popular vote of a single individual. The number of despots that have taken power over the premise of popularity should be enough to convince you otherwise.

    You submit that BO has only a ‘technical’ tie to the UK. Do you have a copy of his long form Birth Certificate (with foot prints) that confirms this? I am sure that you know IF his mother was a minor when he was born, and she did not remain in the US for 5 years after, then he was soley a British subject at birth. The UK to Kenyan transfer, and how it applies to someone potentially adopted living in Indonesia, I don’t have a clue about. What if BO has UK, Indonesian, Kenyan, and US citizenship and all of them are legally mutually exclusive of one another? This is getting confusing, and clearly beyond ‘entangled’. SCOTUS has their work cut out for them.

    Thank you for your discussion

  20. Kevin says:

    I thought I had heard them all, but apparently not.

    The 14th Amendment says that everyone born in the United States is a citizen; there is nothing about minors, or 5 years. Any such requirement would be, well, unconstitutional!

    And even IF Barack Obama had become an Indonesian citizen (which is very unlikely), he would have retained his US Citizenship simply by virtue of returning to the US (See Immigration and Naturalization act of 1940).

    See also: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/

  21. Kevin says:

    So Justice Swayne said this:

    “All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.”

    What, precisely, does he mean by “born in the Allegiance of the United States” mean? In naturalization cases the principle is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” which is, of course true for a certain kid born in Honolulu back in 1961.

    Not to speak to you personally, Pete, but this whole thing smells of anti-immigrant bigotry to me.

  22. Pete says:

    1866 Civil Rights Act
    14 Stat. 27-30, April 9, 1866 A.D.CHAP. XXXI.
    An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FORIEGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; ……

    14th Amendment
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…..

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

    Please see above taken from the civil rights act of 1866, the 14th amendment, and the British Nationality act of 1948. The British Empire claimed BO at birth, he has acknowledged this on his website. Therefore, will the SCOTUS say he ‘WAS A FORIEGN POWER SUBJECT, AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION’ of the state he was born in, ie Hawaii. Born in “allegiance of the United States” means in my opinion (and that is why we need SCOTUS), no foriegn entaglements.

    There have been times when the US should have been more enlightened…especially with slavery. The one common thing that has allowed so many different people to live in peace and prosper in this incredible republic has been the Constitution and adherence to rule of law. The Constitution is the most pro-immigration document the world, in it’s history, has ever witnessed. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were afraid of foreign powers and foreign citizens claim on the US POTUS, and believe me it was a JUSTIFIED fear.

  23. Kevin says:

    I suppose that you realize that you are not just arguing that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President; you are arguing that he is not a citizen. And indeed, the argument you put forward implies that no one born in the United States to non-citizens is a citizen, thereby denying citizenship to millions of people who up until now have been considered citizens.

    The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) in a 6-2 decision, held that “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States”.

    The larger context of the preceding quote is:

    …The fourteenth 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 all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. 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 citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject‘; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’

    So the Supreme Court would have to reverse itself to accommodate you.

  24. Pete says:

    US vs Wong 1898; and you use the language……..”OF CHILDREN OF FOREIGN SOVEREIGNS”…… I take that statement to mean that the US cannot claim citizens of individuals born on it’s territory if they are under a foreign sovereign. Note the language from 1866 Civil Rigths Act…”NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FORIEGN POWER”… and 14th amendment… “Subject to the Jurisdiction”. You might read the desenting opinion on the US vs Wong case, and the fear that Native Born/Natural Born could be confused to circumvent the founding fathers intent to prevent foriegn powers ursurping the POTUS. I would also point out that say ‘drafting’ a foriegn citizen who was born on US soil into the US military would be the equivelent of the British press ganging American sailors into British Warships because of the same claims.
    The 14th Amendment, as you have already noted, did not DIRECTLY change or address the POTUS requirements, and by the Constitutional, they are still in effect. To my knowledge, there has been no change specifically written in an amendment to change the constitution adversion to recognize dual citizenship at least for POTUS. The original Constitutional requirements have not been addressed by the SCOTUS in regards to the 14th amendment, which is why I strongly believe that they will make an opinion prior to Dec. 15th. The very least you can say is that with 5 law suits now accepted for review in closed chambers Dec. 5th, the SCOTUS is taking it VERY seriously. Obviously, the SCOTUS would have to reverse NOTHING to accommodate me, since they have NEVER ruled on the 14th amendment in regards to POTUS, Dual citizenship, or foreign entanglements.

    You believe the SCOTUS will rule in favor of BO because he was born on US soil. You may be correct, but I don’t think that the 5 lawsuits at the SCOTUS level up for review in 3 days are ‘crackpots’ or ‘garbage’, but are serious questions about the constitution. This is perhaps the most interesting Supreme Court constitutional decision of my lifetime.

    Despite all the 14th amendment stuff, I think it is obvious that BO’s would not be qualified if he was: 1) born of foreign soil and only registered in Hawaii 2) His mother did not fufill the requirements to pass on citizenship by staying in the US for a period. 3)He declared his alliagence to a foreign government and travelled on a foreign passport as an adult 4) Was legally adopted to a foriegn country and has not sworn back to the US. 5) He still a citizen of a foriegn country.

  25. Pete says:

    Im sorry to not have noted a response to past POTUS who had parents from foriegn counties.

    The point about lack of foriegn entanglements/Natural born can be addressed for all of these Presidents. Im sure you are aware that the Constitutions ‘born before 1790’ clause makes Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson eligible. The blood line for presidents whose FATHERS were US citizens isn’t a problem either because the UK didn’t recognized claim on citizenship via mothers it seems(british naturalization act 1948), which makes James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover with only US citizenship claims. Chester Arthur Father had immigrated to the US (?naturalized), mom was US citizen, he was born in US, therefore he was a natural born US citizen.

    Barack Obama would be the first US President to take office with prior history of Dual Citizenship, and therefore possible continued entaglements. The SCOTUS will have to cover all of the above, and include the 14th amendment obligations in its findings…..interesting.

  26. Kevin says:

    Pete,

    Up until a couple of months ago, basically everyone who knew anything about citizenship and qualifications for President knew that “natural-born citizen” meant that you were a “citizen at birth”.

    If you do a Google search on “natural-born citizen -obama” (the “-obama” says to omit results with the word “obama” in them) you will see any number of law and constitution web sites that say “natural-born citizen” = “citizen at birth”.

    Now, as if by magic, hundreds of anti-Obama web sites have sprung up, full of comments suggesting that EVERYBODY “knows” you have to be born of Citizens to be a natural-born citizen. If you do a Google search on “”natural-born citizen obama” you’ll see hundreds of pages saying the opposite of the former list of web sites. That is, the opinion about what a “natural-born citizen” is correlates to whether someone is talking about Obama or not. I think that tells us a lot about what is really going on.

    I assume that with the inevitable release of a perfectly normal Obama hospital birth registration looming, the anxiety-mongers had to come up with something new to keep up on the heat on Barack Obama, to try to lower his popularity, and make it more difficult for him to govern.

    The best argument I have seem for the “pure American” citizenship movement have come from those who believe United States v Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Keep in mind, though, that those arguments are not about the presidency, but about citizenship in general. If US v Wong is wrong, than that Chinese kid should have been shipped back to China no matter whether he aspired to be President.

    To me this is all the expression of anxiety over immigration. My grandfather who had a German surname was rumored to be “talking to Hitler from a radio in his basement” (even though he didn’t even have a basement). Nevertheless, and particularly in times of stress, people look for a scapegoat. Anyone about whom a disloyal association can be alleged is liable to fall victim to some bigotry.

    I must repeat, the Supreme Court is not obligated to take any case it doesn’t want to take. It only takes a small percentage of the cases presented to it. I do not know whether the Supreme Court is taking this seriously at all.

    1: Obama was born Honolulu; it says so on his certified copy. Add to that, the Hawaiian foreign-born registration law wasn’t passed until 1982.
    2: Moot, since Obama was born in the United States.
    3: No evidence and even if it were true, it would not effect his US citizenship status.
    4: No evidence and even if it were true, it would not effect his US citizenship status.
    5: Any particular country you have in mind? Indonesia, Kenya, Great Britain? He probably never was an Indonesian citizen and Kenya doesn’t allow dual citizenship for adults, so that would have expired when he turned 21. Great Britain? Dunno.

  27. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    I have found the origin for ‘Natural Born’ statement in the US constitution, as it seems to be agreed upon by historians. This is a letter from John Jay to President George Washington (c1787) prior to the congress meeting for the Constitution. You note, that the Constitution uses the same words “Natural Born” as John Jay in regards to POTUS.

    Dear Sir,
    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
    I remain, dear sir,
    Your faithful friend and servant,

    Obama claimed dual citizenship, stated in his websites. He can be native born, he can be a US citizen, but can’t be ‘Natural Born’ because of birth entanglements. In the US vs Wong, there is no mention of the POTUS qualifications, except with the decenting opinions who expressed concern that US vs Wong could be mis-interpreted to mean Wong was qualified for POTUS.

    My ‘numbered’ paragraph were ‘hyoptheticals’ as mentioned. The long form birth certificate, with his foot prints if possible, would quickly resolve the mania about location of his birth and his mothers ability to transfer citizenship. BO has continous secret service protection and the statement that he won’t release because of ‘risk for identity theft’ is left wanting.

  28. Kevin says:

    Yes the Jay letter is important. Jay was concerned that someone from outside would be imported as President. But I am confident that Jay wouldn’t have had a moment’s hesitation about someone born here that had most of his life here.

    Images of Hawaiian long forms floating around the Internet do not have footprints on them. A hospital souvenir record (of no legal value) that parents get to take home with them might have it. I daresay that the next anti-Obama gambit will be to claim that the Barack Obama elected president isn’t the same Barack Obama that was born in Hawaii (’cause there aren’t any footprints).

    The Wong case doesn’t talk bout being president, but it does talk about jurisdiction at birth, which is the language of the 14th amendment. The reasonable conclusion is that the 14th amendment creates two classes of citizens and that these correspond to those citizens who may become president and those who may not. This is how the country has understood Article 2 all these years.

  29. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    For the record, and believe me here I know, the finger print and footprint thing is what your birth certificate is based upon. The document you saw on-line was a certification of birth, which is supposed to be based upon the above. Delivered in a hospital, at home by a midwife, ect.. those documents MUST be filed with the State ASAP. This apparently was the requisite in every state EXCEPT hawaii in 1961, where you just had to show up. He released these it would immediately end that portion of the controversy. Releasing copies of these (with private info blacked out) is simple, cheap, and effective and would end all of this speculation.

    I have to disagree with you on Jay, he like most early Americans were against any POTUS with potential foriegn entanglements. Jay, Washington, et al would have never allowed a british citizen by birth, like BO, to be allowed to be commander in chief of the US military. BO could be another Abraham Lincoln, but the risk to the future republic is to great if the POTUS can be allowed to have entanglements.

    Spent alot of time looking at old books, old research, and foriegn entanglements as it applies to Natural born. Im going to predict that the SCOTUS will disqualify BO based upon his dual citizenship. They will rule that McCain is eligible because no foriegn government has made claim upon him except the US, and he has never claimed Dual Citizenship. However, that DOESN”T equate to McCain being POTUS, since the states have control over their electorial votes..and could cast them for another democratic party candidate….like Biden or Hillary.

    I truly hope that BO just releases his records today, the SCOTUS makes a decision about the dual citizenship on the Dec 5th. This country needs to move on, we really do need change…..and by change I dont’ mean more legal blocks/sealed records/ or “that depends what is…is”. SCOTUS needs to make a definitive decision quickly, before the electorial college.

  30. edeldoug says:

    Obama has put forth only a “Certification of live birth”, which is NOT A Birth Certificate!

    After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the Unted States, Article II, Section I) as a “Natural born citizen” to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America.

    However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a “birth certificate”. What they supplied was actually a “Certificate of Live Birth.” There is a major difference between a “birth certificate” and a “Certificate of Live Birth.”

    Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) – in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn’t. This part is important; – it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

    Per the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.” (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html).

    The “Certificate of Live Birth” provided by Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the “Amended certificates of birth” they site. Why is that important? Because of that second clause in the above citation. While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove “natural born” citizenship. “Natural born citizenship” is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution.

    The form Obama posted wouldn’t even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii’s Home Lands Program!

    From: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

    “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

    THIS is a HI Birth Certificate:

    http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521

    And this is the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama’s website:

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

    Notice any differences?

    Hospital of birth? Residence address of mother? Birthplace of parents? SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

    What Obama has posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to “citizen of the WORLD’… Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

    Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even – as some suggest – CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

    Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous “Barry Soetoro”? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I’m just asking…)

  31. Truth says:

    Gesh, It hurts me to post this. I told myself not until after Friday, so this makes me feel like I’m eating at Captain D’s after giving up fish for lent. Anyways….. Here is an Angle I honestly never thought about, as obvious as it is. Of course, this is not a proof positive thing, but it sure is an odd story. He could have been born on the beach at Hanama Bay…hey, it could happen.

    And I know Kevin Oba-Optimist will be able to debunk this even faster than he can say “I told you so”.

    Still it meets the “good nuf to post” criteria. Have fun with it.

    xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    All Hospitals In Honolulu County Were Called – ALL of them say he was not born at their hospital.

    Excerpt From Article: We were pretty detailed in our calls. You can look at every hospital here and call any of them. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.

    All of these were called from November 20 – December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE… FACT!

    Hospitals you can check yourself…

    The Queen’s Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital

    Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
    Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Hawaii Health Systems Corporation – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Cancer Institute of Maui – Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment Huh

    Kuakini Hospital – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii – Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Straub Heatlh – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Tripler Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Wahiawa General Hospital – Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Wilcox Memorial Hospital – Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

    Read Rest Of Article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2141909/posts

  32. Kevin says:

    They missed a hospital: The Coast Provincial Hospital (in Mombasa, Kenya). Why do you figure they didn’t call that one? 😉

    While most Obama residences can be traced, the hospital where he was born is difficult to document. The desire of historians to pinpoint where Obama’s life began has crashed head-on with the modern American propensity toward confidentiality. The federal Health Information Privacy Act of 1999 — a law passed to protect medical records from public scrutiny — prevents hospitals from confirming births, administrators contend.

    “We don’t have plans to do anything,” said Kapiolani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama’s family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961.

    “We can’t confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that’s because of the HIPA law.”

    Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama’s birthplace. Much as she wishes she could do it, Tong said it’s not possible.

    “Our hands are tied,” she said.

    Source: The Honolulu Advertiser

  33. Kevin says:

    I got this long comment above. I’ll reply to the specific points in boldface below:

    edeldoug Says:
    December 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Obama has put forth only a “Certification of live birth”, which is NOT A Birth Certificate!

    Generally the terms are interchangeable.

    After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the Unted States, Article II, Section I) as a “Natural born citizen” to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America.

    Yes, the document they provided is generally considered proof of birth in the United States which is generally considered (along with age and residency requirements) to be the sole qualifications to be president of the United States.

    However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a “birth certificate”. What they supplied was actually a “Certificate of Live Birth.” There is a major difference between a “birth certificate” and a “Certificate of Live Birth.”

    Yes, the major difference is the order of the words.

    Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) – in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn’t. This part is important; – it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

    Keep in mind that there is nothing in the Constitution about “birth certificates”. Natural born citizenship by most accounts is attained by being born in the United States. The document Obama provided, properly executed and sealed by the State of Hawaii says plainly and in no uncertain terms that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu.

    Per the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.” (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html).

    Two major flaws there. First, Hawaiian law requires that amended birth certificates be clearly marked “Altered”, which Barack’s isn’t. Second the law you site was not passed until 1982; Barack Obama’s birth certificate was filed in 1961. Links to the applicable laws are in my article at http://www.blogordie.com/2008/11/obama-citizenship-denial-final-summary/

    The “Certificate of Live Birth” provided by Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the “Amended certificates of birth” they site. Why is that important? Because of that second clause in the above citation. While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove “natural born” citizenship. “Natural born citizenship” is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution.

    No, amended certificates by law must contain the word “altered”. But beyond that there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. One might amend a birth certificate, but one cannot do so just for fun. You have to provide documentation, or get a court order, to have it changed. That is amended birth certificates say TRUE THINGS.

    The form Obama posted wouldn’t even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii’s Home Lands Program!

    From: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

    “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

    You’re right. Hawaii Homelands requires the applicant to prove that they have 50% Hawaiian blood in their ancestry. While Obama’s Certification is good enough for a passport, it does not show his blood line.

    THIS is a HI Birth Certificate:

    http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521

    I’m no forensic document examiner, and I’ve never seen a real Hawaiian birth certificate like that, but I’ll take your word that this is a certified copy of a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth.

    And this is the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama’s website:

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

    Yup, that’s it.

    Notice any differences?

    Yes, one is a hospital form accepted by a local registrar, passed on to the State, stamped with a serial number and signed by the registrar. The other is a computer printed abstract of the facts of birth, stamped and signed by the registrar. Most birth certificates in the United States today look like the second kind.

    There is one strong similarity though: they both say that the Location of Birth is Honolulu.

    Hospital of birth? Residence address of mother? Birthplace of parents? SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

    Right, the abstracts attest to only part of the total package. They are designed to provide certification (proof in law) of the facts of birth: name, place, date, parents names and date of registration, basically what you need to get a passport. The things that aren’t on the abstract are irrelevant for most legal purposes including whether one is born in the United States.

    By the way, the certificate you say is the “real one” is cut off. There’s actually a lot more that would have been below what yours showed.

    What Obama has posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    It’s only “not” if you define “birth certificate” in a way completely at odds with normal usage. The document Obama presented “certifies” his “birth”; it is an official document of the State of Hawaii attesting that Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

    There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to “citizen of the WORLD’… Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

    That’s true. Obama could have at one point or another in his life claimed at least three citizenships. I’m glad he picked ours. I’ve never had it demonstrated to me that Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen, but if it were true, it would make no difference. I would refer you both to the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1952 and to current US law, both of which say that children don’t lose their citizenship no matter what their parents do as long as they come back the United States by age 25, which Barack Obama inarguably did.

    Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even – as some suggest – CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

    It is hardly relevant what Indonesian law says. US law does allow dual citizenship, and it does not allow a minor to lose his citizenship in the situation you describe. Your comment “His US Citizenship would be forfeit!” is contrary to fact and contrary to law.

    http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/

    People who cite that school record (which is not a legal document), fail to notice up at the top that it says Barry’s birthplace was Honolulu. Did you notice? But the school record is irrelevant; there is nothing that can happen to a child to take away his citizenship in any circumstance even alleged to apply to Barack Obama.

    Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous “Barry Soetoro”? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I’m just asking…)

    It is not possible to regain what one never lost. Immigration law is complicated and that’s why people can be fooled by the spambots so easily. It if you want to take the time, read the more detailed explanation here: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/10/did-obama-becom.html

    It’s always good to clear the air and correct some of the unfortunate misconceptions flying around the Internet these days. I hope you will look over some of my other articles on related subjects.

  34. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    We have discussed the origins of Natural Born, the civil rights act of 1866, and the 14th amendment. While we have agreed to disagree on the 14th amendment effect on the original constitution, I have thought of something else to consider, and wanted your opinion.

    BO and his wife are both attorneys, and BO specialty was Constitutional law. He would obviously have access to information, and even legal opinion, perhaps even current or past SCOTUS members to ask this specific question of. For the purpose of discussion let’s say, hypothetically, that your interpretation of the 14th amendment as it pertains to the Constitutional requirements for POTUS is correct, and that if you are born on US soil, you are eligible for POTUS despite foreign entanglements.
    The obvious interest to the administration would be to release all documents, including his long form birth certificate, college admission records, previous passports to unequivocally demonstrate unwavering allegiance and that he was born, lived, and always considered himself a US citizen and Natural born. Those documents provided BEFORE the election, would have given ‘weight’ to your opinion that this should be decided by popular vote if vague interpetations occurred. Releasing after the popular elections, eliminates the possibility claiming support by popular vote by the basis that the public could be considered deliberately miss-lead if damaging material is found. Refusing to release at all has no positive outcome for BO, other than a visible attempt to ‘hide’ damaging material. When becoming POTUS, you must understand that your ‘right to privacy’ will be tempered by the public right to know your eligibility and allegiance. I would appreciate your thoughts on what he has to gain by refusing to release these records, and what ‘right to privacy’ do you retain when you declare yourself a candidate for POTUS?

    It seems that the many POTUS have ‘broken’ the constitution; 1)FDR and the Japanese internment camps 2) Nixon and Watergate break-in 3) Reagan support of contras 4) Clinton and perjury to Federal Judge 5)George Bush and issues with detention of un-uniformed combatants. I have been saddened by all of these events, but somewhat less harsh in condemnation of those who did so in the belief of protecting the public and republic—like FDR, Reagon, or Bush, and bitterly angry about those who did so for their own self interests. Your family seems to have had personal experience with ‘mob’ mentality, “German father in basement with radio—didn’t have basement” and past POTUS disregard for constitutional rights. Since Obama has a background in constitutional law, if he has ‘sealed’ the records to hide ineligibility and it is discovered, how would you feel about him being POTUS?

  35. Kevin says:

    Pete,

    I have thought quite a bit hypothetically about how releasing documents would work.

    We know, given the furor over a perfectly-legal birth certificate from Hawaii, that documents posted on a web site lead to more negative results than positive ones. The same is true with Obama’s selective service registration form, obtained by others, possibly altered, but nonetheless picked to pieces and presented to people who don’t know better as evidence of a felony cover-up by the government. Further, if any document (say a previous passport) were unavailable, it would be the dark corner where all the suspicions live.

    So do we create a “blue ribbon panel” of experts to pour over these documents in a very public way so that everyone is satisfied?

    The Los Angeles Times said Friday: “This controversy has been brewing for many months online with few taking it seriously. ” Anything that could legitimately certify Obama documents would also legitimize the controversy so that instead of a “few”, there might be “many”.

    Why would Obama give them the legitimacy that up to now they have not had and publicity they do not deserve?

  36. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    That is better explanation that “it’s an identity theft issue” I have to admit that it is at least logical. However, McCain when confronted with the above moved quickly to release his documents and it certainly removed most of the controversy. McCain’s only challenge left was that produced by Donofrio which made the assumption that he wasn’t natural born because he was born on foreign soil. Since his father was in the military, and in my opinion an ‘ambassador’ of the US government in that circumstance, he should have been excluded. Also, in McCain’s circumstance, soldiers of ‘occupying armies’ offspring are not generally no granted citizen rights in the occupied country. Therefore, McCain’s only possible citizenship was US, and ‘no entanglements’. In that instance, the release seemed to quell the controversy.

    Concerning the altered documents I clearly cannot look favorably on anyone who deliberately defrauds/forges documents (alters) to defame a current POTUS or elect. There is political satire and first amendment rights, but deliberate attempts to pass these as real should be criminal. Really, to BO defense here, it is inappropriate for anyone to alter those documents, on line or not, to defraud him. I hope that we can agree that this is a grave offense.

    I would truly like to hear your opinion on what rights an individual has to privacy, as it pertains to basic documents of proof of requirements, the individual should have when running for POTUS. I am truly interested in your thoughts about a POTUS who runs for office knowing full well they are ineligible.

  37. Kevin says:

    While I may claim some expertise on Obama’s birth certificate, I cannot say the same about McCain’s; however, my understanding is that McCain refused to release his birth certificate, and that it got into public hands some other way, and further that the certificate (which was attached to the Hollander v McCain lawsuit) clearly shows that McCain was born in the Republic of Panama and not in the Canal Zone as is typically reported in the newspapers. There is certainly both a short and long form birth certificate image that I have seen floating around from Panama, plus pages from the Panama Canal Zone health department birth registry that omit McCain’s birth. There are some (myself not among them) that argue against McCain’s “natural born status” because of the place of his birth. Since I never was concerned about McCain’s status, I never pursued this controversy.

    While there are some things related to a President’s family (and particularly his children) that should be off limits to the public, I do not think that a President (or Presidential candidate) has much expectation of privacy related to his past. While some privacy laws may prevent certain individuals from releasing certain information, and this should be respected, I am not putting forward any “right to privacy” argument about a politician’s past.

    We agree fully on the issue of document fraud. I further feel very strongly against document misrepresentation.

  38. Pete says:

    Kevin,

    Not to press you, but I think you missed my last question about “I am truly interested in your thoughts about a POTUS who runs for office knowing full well they are ineligible.”. What are your thoughts here?

  39. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    I did read the full opinion on the wong case, which can be found at findlaw.com.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

    It appears that both the majority and minority opinions concurred that unquestioned Natural Born can only occur in three circumstances: 1) Two citizen parents with child born on State soil 2)Two citizen parents with child born on foriegn soil, but parents with diplomatic function 3) Two citizen parents with child born on occupied territory. Wong, in their eyes was Native born (since both parents were foriegn citizens) NOT Natural born. The justices make reference to Native born and Natural born, spending considerable time either justifying citizenship or not justifying citizenship on US soil birth. They do not attempt to claim that Wong made the status of ‘Natural Born’ as noted under presidential requirements, and do cite the POTUS requirements.

    Should the current Supreme Court make a ruling about ‘Natural Born’ in regards to POTUS, it will have to follow the language in Wong, which give three distinct way Natural Born can be achieved. You might want to spend some time (actually it took about considerable time) reading through the Wong case.

  40. Kevin says:

    Pete, you said: “I am truly interested in your thoughts about a POTUS who runs for office knowing full well they are ineligible.”

    I am firmly convinced that this hypothetical doesn’t apply to Barack Obama. I don’t offer this as a “legal opinion”, but as evidence of “what most people think”: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html says anyone born in the United States as a citizen can become President. There are law school web sites that say the same thing. Anything else is not the prevailing view, and Barack Obama, as a professor of Constitutional law would know this. He should be one of the people who is reasonably the most confident that he is eligible.

    That said, if some hypothetical candidate ran for president, having a chance to win, lead people to believe he was eligible by running, then I would say that person was a person of low moral character and someone it would be dangerous to have as president.

    In the case of Barack Obama, however, it is unreasonable to cry “fraud”. Everything about Obama’s eligibility to be president has been in full public view since he declared his candidacy. His book, Dreams From My Father, has been in print for fourteen years! It says where he was born, who how father was, where he traveled as a child, and when he returned to the United States.

    I consider this whole “native born” thing to rest fringe scholarship and cranks. [By “fringe scholarship” I mean scholarship which has not made much progress in becoming the consensus in the field.]

  41. Kevin says:

    I’ve read Wong rather rapidly. I didn’t look at the minority opinion, because minority opinions don’t count. Wong was decided 6-2. I’m not sure what would be gained by reading it again.

    Wong says: “…no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.” Wong then goes on to talk about the fact that persons born in the territory of the United States are fully, directly and completely under the dominion and the jurisdiction of the United States.

  42. TRUTH says:

    Kevin Says:
    In the case of Barack Obama, however, it is unreasonable to cry “fraud”. Everything about Obama’s eligibility to be president has been in full public view since he declared his candidacy. His book, Dreams From My Father, has been in print for fourteen years! It says where he was born, who how father was, where he traveled as a child, and when he returned to the United States.

    So a BOOK, WRITTEN by Mr. Obama is now creditable enough documentation to use as qualification for POTUS? Or is it because it is 14yrs old that passes the Legal Limit?

  43. Kevin says:

    My point is that nothing about Obama’s eligibility for president that is know today wasn’t already known before the election. Obama cannot be faulted for keeping something hidden that he published in book which has been out for 14 years.

    No post-election surprise has been sprung on the American people.

    The flurry of lawsuits is are a “hail mary” end zone pass by the losing team with seconds to go in the game.

  44. TRUTH says:

    No Post-Election SURPRISE?!?! hahaha… They ASKED the man for the document before November 4th, it isn’t the plaintiffs fault it has come to this.

    And “Hail Mary”..lmao. not even close.

  45. Kevin says:

    Well, let me clue you in on what the New Jersey Attorney General filed in response to the Donofrio suit:

    Moreover, rather than bringing this action promptly – i.e. as soon as the Secretary failed to carry out this alleged duty, in September – or file an objection or suit within the time frames set by [New Jersey law], Appellant [Leo C. Donofrio] has waited until the eve of the general election to raise his meritless challenge.

    Even if Obama had released a copy of his original hospital birth record, neither the Berg nor the Donofrio suits would have gone away, as each makes claims beyond beyond questions of where Obama was born and beyond any question of documentation.

  46. Pete says:

    [The comment which follows appears to have been lifted without attribution from an article by P. A. Madison in 2005 published here. Kevin]

    Kevin,
    This is the discussion from the floor of congress prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment. The references are below. I don’t see any hint of doubt about what “Natural Born” meant as regards to POTUS from the people who discussed, voted for, and authored the amendment.

    What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers
    of the Fourteenth Amendment?
    We are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
    [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
    Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[1]
    Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
    Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[2]
    Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:
    [Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[3]
    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[4]
    Footnotes
    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor39
    Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
    [1]. Id. at 2893
    [2]. Id. at 2895
    [3]. Id. at 2893
    [4]. Id. at 1291

    That puts the meaning of the term ‘Natural Born” to bed as it refers to the intent and word, by the fatehr of the 14th amendment himself. Parents (not single) not owing alliegance to any foriegn sovereignty….

    Sooner or laters, someone with ‘standing’ is going to get this to the SCOTUS. This isn’t going away, it has to be addressed and the SCOTUS has to ‘define it’.

  47. Kevin says:

    Pete:

    I expect those who offer comments here to think for themselves, not cut and paste stuff from other web sites. And at least if they are going to borrow others’ material, it be properly attributed, titled, and linked.

    The material pasted is really not about “natural born citizenship” but “citizenship” in general. In fact, the title of the original article is “The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans”. Given that bit of exposure, one can see how really fringe the argument is. I don’t think we should undergo a revolution in the definition of citizenship just to keep Obama out of the White House. [The original article was written in 2005, obviously not with Barack Obama specifically in mind.]

    I’m not at all happy with how the material from Rep. Bingham is presented. Is out of order both chronologically and contextually. The 14th Amendment came after the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and has no language like “owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. Bingham’s comment should have come first with its context and then the disclosure that his language did not survive in the Amendment he is said to be the father of. Don’t you think that’s an important point?

    We have generally understood that members of the Indian tribes (at one time) and foreign ambassador’s children are not under our full jurisdiction, and citizenship is treated differently on those cases. But the language of United States vs Wong Kim Ark pretty strongly says that those born here (with certain exceptions) are fully under our jurisdiction.

    So I find your borrowed argument both contextually mangled and overall not persuasive.

  48. Pete says:

    Kevin,
    I saw that section on Chester A. Arthur’s father, and agree that Arthur was a fraud and should have spent his life in prison. That is why all the family papers were burned. Problem for Obama, is with modern electronics and record keeping it is going to be impossible to ‘burn’ all the family records or even to ‘seal’ all of them. Natural Born, not in my humble opinion, he was a British Subject at birth because of his paternal transfer of citizenship.

    I considered it a ‘fringe’ to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii before. I must retract that, and say now that it is most likely that he was born outside the US. Multiple document experts have stated that the certification documents submitted have ‘irregularities’ and cannot be affirmed as unaltered authentic. Should we be shocked about this possibility, probably not….look at the whole forged document against George Bush by the Dems in the last election. Also, there is no logical reason why he didn’t simply get an original long form copy of his birth certificate and produce it. The Hawaii dept. of Health representitive has stated that he has an original birth certificate in Hawaii, which means absolutely nothing about place of birth by hawaii state laws.

    The original long form birth certificate will surface, to many lawsuits and challenges. Furthermore, I think it likely that the port of entry documents have already been found on his immigration. Should that documents say ‘Birth: KENYA’ then Obama is spending the rest of his life in Kansas, and likely with many DNC and campaign followers. Why a life in Kansas…..so many federal crimes and one popular federal prison in Leavenworth.

    Berg and Donofrio and a few others determined democrats are starting to look more like true American Patriots, and less like ‘tin foil hat’ people.

    • Kevin says:

      If you think Arthur was a fraud, you are in no agreement with me.

      He was wise in statesmanship and firm and effective in administration. Honesty in national finance, purity and effectiveness in the civil service, the promotion of commerce, the re-creation of the American navy, reconciliation between North and South and honorable friendship with foreign nations received his active support. Good causes found in a fiend and bad measures met in him an unyielding opponent.

      –Elihi Root, June 13, 1899
      As cited by historian Thomas C. Reeves in his biography of Arthur, Gentleman Boss.

      If you so readily accept the slander of one good man, no wonder you accept the slander against a another. Yet you give credibility to two so-called document experts that won’t even give their right names. Sandra Lines rightly tell us that one cannot verify a document image, but we also have the word of a US Senator, two high Hawaiian officials, and an independent fact-checking organization to examined the document.

      See also: The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur and The Strange Case of Chester Alan Arthur.

      Donofrio is a lawyer. Lawyers make their cases by painting alternate views of reality in which they are right. Unfortunately, Donofrio has followers lacking the requisite skills in critical thinking to see how they are being hoodwinked. There is nothing patriotic about falsifying American history and misrepresenting US law.

      As for Berg, his suit is a joke. He cites that Canadian Birth Certificate as evidence, the one signed by Dudley Doright [a cartoon character from the 1960’s] with certificate number of BR-549 [a joke telephone number from another TV series]. For more on Berg, see: It seems you don’t need to know much about the law to be Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania
      and Where’s Your Evidence?.

      Have you noticed how many of the so-called sworn statements in these lawsuits are by anonymous individuals sworn under fake names (which is a lie right off the bat)?

      And as for Hawaiian law, you must have let a person without integrity tell you what Hawaiian law is, because it is not what you said. A careful explanation (which you can verify for your very own self) of why the foreign registration in Hawaii theory is impossible is here.

Comments are closed.