My One and Only Post on Birthers

The Provocateur ^ | 07/29/2009 | Mike Volpe

[fiscon1]

I never really worried about the so called controversy of th birth of President Obama because I am no fan of conspiracy theories. In order to believe that President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, you not only have to believe that a conspiracy is being created involving an entire state's bureaucratic apparatus, but you also have to believe that President Obama has been lying, or lied to, since he was a child. After all, he's maintained he was born in Hawaii since he was a kid. Either he was claiming this lie long before he wanted to be president, or his entire family lied to him about his place of birth.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The law specifically states that children born to ambassadors are not citizens of this country. That is not a “for instance”, it is an exception.

The part of the law quoted regarding age of the mother is a section regarding children born OUTSIDE the United States.

In the law reference being posted, it says that if you are born on U.S. Soil, you are a U.S. citizen, no matter what. Note though that this particular page being posted does not reference changes in the law over time regarding the status of those who are born in the United States, I think because the court precedent is to grant citizenship to those born here regardless of the year they were born. I believe the LAW itself which granted anchor-baby status was post Obama’s birth.

However, Obama doesn’t fall under the anchor-baby provision, because his mother was a citizen. The only question for Obama regarding the law is if he was born in the United States. If he was, he’s natural born citizen. If not, his mother wasn’t old enough to confer natural-born citizenship to him, because his father was not a citizen.

That is why the argument hinges on his place of birth.

[DMZFrank]

We can’t take his word for anything. This man is a proven inveterate sociopathic liar. We must have documentation that legally establishes who the man’s bio dad is. He may have been trying to create a romantic myth of an African father that might be more compelling than say a Hawaiin Communist. `I am not accountable as to why he LIES SO DAMN MUCH!!!! He is accountable to show his qualifications for the presidency.

The man has REPEATEDLY lied about his genealogy.
He lied About how his parents met and conceived him, he lied about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz, he lied about his father being part of an airlift from Africa paid for by the Kennedys, he lied about his father’s religious upbringing, and he lied about how he met his wife.

Why does anyone think that he wouldn’t lie about something that might get him kicked out of the presidency?????

Also a NBC must be born on US soil. The original BC would show that or not.

We MUST not allow the moral onus of this debate to be inverted. A legitimate and moral president would be MORE than happy to allay his countrymen’s legitimate concerns about the legal basis for his governance and produce ordinary documentation to confirm that legal and constitutional basis, as did Barry Goldwater, George Romney Sr, and John S.McCain. It is he who has caused this crisis, and no amount of pettifogging obsfucation by his acolytes can change that.

But I am certain that Hussein ain’t legitimate. He is all likelihood a lying usurping BASTARD who, were these documents be revealed, expose him for the counterfeit POTUS that he is.

We are pursuing his lack of NBC qualifications because he ACTS like someone who has none. He cannot be qualified without revealing himself as the perverted sociopathic liar that he is, because he cannot be qualified without a US citizen father and Hussein had to be born on US soil. We need not fear exposing at LEAST that.

[Eagle Eye]

But, no, instead they’re demonizing anyone who even dares to talk about the story (for example, Dobbs).

That's what authority figures do when questioned or challenged and they don't have the answers.

And no, I don't view the MSN and Congress as gneuine authority figures but they see themselves that way.

[autumnraine]

Exactly. That is why the birth certificate is so important. It makes or breaks the issue of his citizenship.

[gigster]

To say you are confused would be a under-statement.
Read the law.
Also, there is a difference between being a “Citizen”, and a “Natural-Born Citizen”.
Do you know the difference?

[autumnraine]

“That’s why we are having the debate — the question of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya is the ONLY critical question, as the other facts are not in dispute.”

I understand that, that is the whole reason behind the need to see (and not just a website address with a scanned document, but a handed in as official evidence) the birth certificate showing where he was born.

I personally think he was born in Canada to avoid paying the hospital for a birth. The Dunhams lived in Seattle before Hawaii and I’m sure were aware of the ‘free’ healthcare there.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I never said the COLB proved anything. I said that there is no longer a dispute that a valid COLB exists. The question of whether the image of a COLB circulated last year was a valid COLB is moot as far as the issue of his citizenship is concerned.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

Six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment there was case brought to the Supreme Court referred to as Minor v. Happersett (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162) In that decision, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of natural born citizen, but did not define it. SCOTUS actually stated that the definition of “natural born citizen” was not defined in the Constitution. Since this decision was post-14th amendment, anyone hoping to hang their hat on the 14th to justify their “interpretation” of natural born citizen is whistling in the dark.

From Minor v. Happersett:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Notice the next to the last sentence. What this says is that if both your parents were US citizens and you were born in the US you’re definitely a natural born citizen. If not, there are “doubts” that you are. Since Obama claims his father was O senior, there are “constitutional” doubts about his being a natural born citizen.

This is a subject that has to get to the Supreme Court and they must define the term “natural born citizen” - and we have to live with their decision.

From http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/
Leo Donofrio talks about the removal of a usurper president:

“... Mr. Galatin was elected to the US Senate from Pennsylvania in 1793 and it was later found that he had never become naturalized. The Senate again voided his election stating that the election wasn’t just “voidable”, but that since there was no way to cure the qualification defect… the election was completely “void”… it didn’t happen.

It’s important to note that the first quo warranto statue enacted by Congress didn’t take effect until 1787 [typo - that should read “1878”] so in 1793 and 1849 the Senate chose to void the elections of the two usurpers.

So here we have precedent for Congressional authority to remove Senators other than by expulsion. Usurpation of office resulted in elections being voided and the Senate record do not even record usurpers as having been members of the Senate. If Congress can remove a usurper to the Senate without expelling him, this provides evidence that Congress can remove a usurper to the Presidency without impeaching him.

It appears there is no possible separation of powers issue to confront. If a person occupying the Presidency is found to be a usurper, then his Presidency is a fiction to be voided in history and his name removed from the record books. A usurper isn’t allowed to have been said to be President. His occupation is a fiction.

In the Galatin case the Senate made clear that since there was no possible way the failure to qualify could be cured, then the election was a total fiction and is void, not voidable, but void, as if it never happened.”

I highly recommend the naturalborncitizen blog. Leo Donofrio is a lawyer and has done EXTENSIVE research on the natural born citizen issue. If you’re looking for information on this subject, this is a great place to start. Whether you love or hate Leo, the research is solid.

[autumnraine]

“We all agree that Obama’s mother was a citizen. And it appears that you understand that as a citizen, if she gave birth to a child within the country, that child is a natural-born citizen.”

Actually, there is a large consensus that since he was born the subject of a foreign country, that excludes him being a “NATURAL BORN” citizen and merely just a CITIZEN.

[Bob J]

I didn't know the phrase “natural born citizen” had been legally defined or adjudicated for constitutional purposes. Can you point me to that info?

[Eagle Eye]

Look at post 88.

The infor is available for anyone to read then develop an infomed opinion.

His NBS status is far from incontrovertible.

At the very least there are legal questions that must be settled.

[CharlesWayneCT]

“... or if someone managed to falsify the records in Hawaii to make it look like he was born there.” That’s an outright lie! A person can have an official BC from Hawaii and nto be born there or even int he US, and you knowit so you are purposely lying to try and squelch the discussion in favor of your false axioms!

Again, you have me at a loss as to what you are trying to argue here.

Are you saying that it is impossible that someone could have falsified the records? Earlier in this very thread another poster suggested that the mother or her relatives could well have lied about where he was born for social reasons, and I don't remember you being upset at them saying so.

I didn't mean to imply that people were falsifying records, I was just trying to cover all the bases. But you don't otherwise strike me as someone who would defend Obama's parents against charges of falsifying records, so I'm not sure why you got so upset.

Yes, they could have filed records that would give him a COLB without deliberately falsifying the records, but it would still lead to him having a COLB so I'm not sure what your argument is or why you are so upset that I suggested that falsifying the records could lead to him having a COLB but not being born in this country.

Or maybe I am missing your point entirely. All I was trying to say was that the COLB does not PROVE he was born in this country, which was what I thought you were arguing as well -- having said so, I didn't expect you'd get so upset about me saying so.

If I didn't know which side you were on, the attacks you keep making on my arguments about how he might not be a citizen would make me think you were on the other side. Thus I am quite confused by your line of argument.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Who is Barrack Obama??

Original birth certificate — Not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Besuki School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released and under suspicion
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — Lost

[Plutarch]

In order to believe that President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, you not only have to believe that a conspiracy is being created involving an entire state's bureaucratic apparatus...

Gosh, if the birthers are so stooooopid, why is it that birther-bashers can't properly bash without distorting, ignoring or confabulating facts?

There is no conspiracy needed whatsoever. All that is needed is for Obama to refuse to release his long form BC. He doesn't need cooperation from anyone else, save from the bureaucrats to not reveal more than they are legally preventing from doing.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Who is Barrack Obama??

Original birth certificate — Not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Besuki School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released and under suspicion
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — Lost

[CharlesWayneCT]

THe “Natural born” part of “natural born citizen” primarily deals with WHERE someone is born. Being born on the soil of the country makes you “natural born”.

It’s the “citizen” that depends on the law. Or, because we love laws, we actually wrote a law which tries to confer “natural-born” on people who were not actually “natural born”, because they were born on foreign soil, not “natural” soil. But that’s why those laws exist, because they are trying to change the definition of “natural born”.

So you are wrong to suggest that a person born on US soil could be a “citizen” but not a “natural born” citizen. In fact, the opposite is true, they could be “natural born” but not be a citizen.

Except that current law says anybody born on US soil except for specifically named special cases (like ambassadors) are citizens.

[Shaun25]

Photos of Obamas birth certificate have been released.

The republican govenor of Hawaii has said on the record that Obama was born in her state.

The Hawaii inspector of health has written a letter stating that he has personally seen and verified that the hawaii state department of health has Obamas original valid birth certificate.

There are also two different newspapers in which Obamas birth was announced all the way back in 1961.

Republican candidate John Mccain investigated these claims during the election and his investigators determined that Obama was a natural born citizen.

At this point those people who are still not convinced will be convinced by nothing short of a time machine trip back to his birth.

[BP2]

As Cort Wrotnowski indicated in his Supplemental Brief to the SCOTUS back in December,
President Chester Arthur was not a “natural born citizen”, and hid those facts until his death.

From that Supplemental Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8830185/Wrotnowski-v-Bysiewicz-Supplemental-Brief

The definitive biography of Chester Arthur's life is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.
Since Chester Arthur burned his papers around the time of his death, this biography fills
many gaps with interviews of family members and authentic documents such as the Arthur family Bible.

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore
rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a
natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the
Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August,
Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had
been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.
Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was
a New Englander who had never left her native country — a
statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

Amazing how history repeats. Remember that emergency trip that Obama made in the last week of October last year,
immediately before his last living grandparent passed away in Hawaii? I'm sure before Obama’s grandmother (”Toots”)
died the day before the election, Obama had PERSONALLY rummaged through every drawer, closet and
shoebox to ensure he had EVERY scrap of paper that could tip off anyone in the future about his ancestry.

The question is still on the billboards:

[CharlesWayneCT]

YOu should follow the link from post 61, because it says exactly what I said it says. The information in post 61 is from the section of the law regarding children born OUTSIDE the United States.

Here is the section from the link regarding children born on U.S. Soil:

Birth in the United States

A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat. Children born in certain U.S. territories -- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam -- may also acquire U.S. citizenship. For details, see Title 8 of the U.S. Code, available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8. Anyone born with U.S. citizenship retains it for life unless he or she deliberately gives it up -- for example, by filing an oath of renunciation.

I hope that is clear enough for you, and will end this line of debate.

The mother's age only comes into play if Obama was born outside the United States. If he was born in Hawaii, he is a natural-born citizen.

[Shaun25]

But he was born in America so

“If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Doesn’t apply.