Burden of Proof

I got a copy of a letter today that said, in part,

Even if he is sworn in on January 20, Barack Obama will not legally be President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a “natural born citizen”.

The fact of the matter is, Barack Obama has presented evidence that he was born in Hawaii, an official certification of the facts of his birth from his home state, a certification which BY LAW is prima facie evidence of those facts. Therefore, it is the responsibility of anyone who thinks otherwise to prove their claims.

If the birth certificate is a forgery, then prove it. If Obama was born in Kenya, prove it. If Hawaiian law allows false statements on birth certificates, prove it.  If dual citizenship at birth negates “natural born” status, prove it. If Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia, prove it. The list is long and I needn’t belabor the point further. If there any challenges to his citizenship prove them.

People have a right to file lawsuits. That is how proof is determined in the public arena. Proof cannot, however, be assessed over the Internet. Internet trials are just the trading of a mixture of information and misinformation, with no rules of evidence, and no referee.

To those who think Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, you are entitled to your opinion, but the United States is a place where we do things by the rule of law. If you want to exclude Barack Obama from being president, I suggest you hire a very good lawyer or write your congressman. Our Constitution doesn’t provide for “trial by blog”.

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.

10 Responses to Burden of Proof

  1. TRUTH says:

    There is one simple flaw with your way of thinking. You say then PROVE IT. So we ask to see the original and they prevent anyone from seeing it, except the beloved Hawaiian officials. So we DO have a lawyer bring it up to the Supreme Court, but it has No Standing.

    Which really, had BHO just shown the original in the first place all this back and forth bantering would not have even taken place. And that just covers the mystery document.

    Related to it is the accusation Donofrio had, right or wrong, about this citizenship issue. Why is this a Supreme Court matter? Why in the world isn’t there a department of legal experts that are able to explain the United State Courts interpretations of what the Constitution says instead of making this such a big deal? I don’t mean an entirely seperate department, but some existing one that would have the smarts to answer such questions and resolve these matters without running through a gambit. You would think, of the thousands of highly paid law graduates working in D.C. that surely one of them is in a position….works in an office, that you could make an appointment, walk in and they could officially give the correct answers to all of this. They would have like a flow chart…if born here….your mother was this nationality…your father was this… etc… ( by the way, I hope you realize I’m not asking YOU these questions, they are just questions in general I’m rambling on and on as they pop into my lil brain..haha)
    But yes, then to PROVE it as you said might not be so insane. I guess though, this is a matter of interpretation from all the things I have read at least. And the 9 Justices will give their final interpretation, which we all have a good idea which way it will go, since they didn’t want to hear this in the first place.

    Oh well, apparently according to the CNN clip I saw they will give an answer Monday. Which think about that, are they all going to mull over this all weekend, HECK No! They had a decision before they even convened Friday Morning, is my guess that is. At least they are doing it fast and not dragging it out I guess.

    So do you like Columbian or Arabica best? They STILL never pulled the vault copy out, hold that thought. 🙂

  2. Kevin says:

    What I was trying to say in my article is “the law says we already have proof”. If someone disputes the evidence, then the burden is on them to prove otherwise. Given that the qualifications for president is a legal issue, the only way to resolve an objection is through the courts. (It would be hopelessly naive to think Obama could just post a scanned copy of his long form on FightTheSmears.com and expect anything to go away.)

    So far, the court cases aren’t going very well (at least 5 dismissed so far). The people who might have standing to bring a suit are not interested, which I think that says something about the merits of the objections.

    The importance of Donofrio’s suit, to my mind, has been grossly inflated. The Donofrio suit hinges on whether New Jersey Secretary of State Wells had a (New Jersey) constitutional obligation to verify the qualifications of the presidential candidates before their electors could appear on the ballot. The court in New Jersey denied a motion to STOP THE ELECTION and opined that it was doubtful the Donofrio could win on the merits. As I read it, the Supreme Court is not looking into the merits of Donofrio’s claim that Obama is disqualified, but rather whether or not the New Jersey Supreme Court was right in affirming the lower court decision not to hear the case or grant the injunction.

    The Supreme Court published Friday that they had granted cert to two cases (not Donofrio), which suggests to me, and to Donofrio, that it doesn’t look good for his case to be heard by the Court.

    Part of the conspiracy theory mindset is to attribute actions to “hidden motives”. If the Court indeed denies cert, the reasonable conclusion is that the appeal had no merit. Given the issues that the Court routinely takes on (e.g., Bush v Gore), I find it not credible to suggest that they are afraid of this one.

    Actually, I don’t drink beer or coffee. If we ever see a copy of the original birth registration and it says Obama was born in Hawaii, how about a statement from you like this: “If I had trusted Hawaiian Officials more, I could have saved myself some time and effort.”

  3. TRUTH says:

    Speaking of naive. In your world there has NEVER been a dirty government official, has there been? Although I do adhere to the belief “innocent until proven guilty”, and “don’t punish the many for the fews faults”, the suspicion exists and as a citizen I have every right to question them. Besides, its not like I am asking a lot, like “no you didn’t climb Mt. Everest”. All I want is a little piece of paper looked at by a different authority.

    “If I had trusted them….” Sure and OJ Simpson was innocent, the law PROVED that, I should not suspect otherwise.

    And if being a conspirator is to question “hidden motives”, I guess I am one, for I question why Obama hasn’t been mature enough to clear this up himself and reveal the original already. The “natural born” issue is another subject that I guess will take some Justices to make the decision on. If nothing else, once they make this ruling I hope “natural born” is settled forever. Funny thing, there is records of people from a year or two ago already taking steps(useless as they may be) towards removing the “natural born” from our Constitution, and unless I’m mistaken they were Liberal Democrats.

    Its very clear, your an Obama supporter and will dismiss ANY concern if it relates to your Candidate. If I were on your side of the fence I might do the same. Of course there are laws, and the COLB has official words making it good enough that St. Peter would accept it at the Pearly Gates. But if a question comes up about something, why can’t they just show the evidence and be done with it. Why not is because your side prefers to stay on the defensive instead of working together.

  4. TRUTH says:

    I guess, relative to your “PROVE IT” statements, this link is one thing showing they are attempting just that. To bad they have to “PROVE IT” and he hasn’t the professionalism to “SHOW IT”.


  5. Kevin says:

    Truth, you said: “Its very clear, your an Obama supporter and will dismiss ANY concern if it relates to your Candidate. ”

    I would appreciate in the future you not attacking my integrity. You are a guest here.

  6. Kevin says:

    OK, Truth, let me give you an example of your being lied to.

    Your last comment above includes a link to wethepeoplefoundation.org. Go there. What’s on the home page? The web page says: ” Note that the birth “Certificate” provides a field where one can register a “FOREIGN” birth in Hawaii:” and the image next to the text is a blow up of a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, block 7e which is labeled “County and State or Foreign Country” [emphasis mine]

    Does anyone doubt that what this is saying: the caption of block 7e PROVES that foreign-born children could be registered in Hawaii in 1963 (the year of the certificate)?

    Fine, where is the lie? The Hawaiian Certificate of Live birth is to blurry to read on the home page, but the larger version ON THEIR OWN WEB SITE is clear enough.

    Block 7e is the “Usual residence of the mother”. The Place of birth is in block 6a, whose caption says: “City, town or rural location”.

    Wake up man. How many times to you have to be lied to before you get it?

  7. TRUTH says:

    ONCE… by Obama.

  8. Kevin says:

    About what, in particular?

  9. TRUTH says:

    lol… Obama is a politician

  10. Kevin says:


Comments are closed.