Putting a period, somewhat after the fact, to one of the silliest rumor campaigns in the history of American presidential politics, a federal judge in Washington concluded March 5 that it was beneath the dignity of his bench to hear a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s by-birth right of eligibility for the Oval Office.
You may remember that last autumn, on the eve of the presidential election, conspiracy buffs and other denizens of the synaptic wastelands, took to the Internet to peddle the idea that Obama could not aspire to the White House because he was born in Kenya. The constitution requires presidents be natural born citizens.
From Hawaii, Democrats posted on the Web for everyone to see a copy of Obama’s certificate of live birth in Honolulu, along with newspaper clippings from the time reporting his American nativity. Unready to accept that proof, the fringe branded the documents insufficient, or fakes, and demanded other materials, and brought lawsuits demanding them.
The Obama campaign laughed, and now, so has a federal court. Judge James Robertson ruled the litigation a waste of time, dismissed the suit before him, and said the case would have ended up in books “that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do.”
Conspiracies are usually just crazy talk. People having there own agenda and want some attention from the media. I usually don't buy into the conspiracy stuff.
No wonder this country is in such a mess! It's completely devoid of thinking people. I ASK THIS: Would a country like the U.S., with all the facilities we have for background checks, allow a non citizen to be elected president? WOULD WE? And if you think we're than inept and that careless, then you better start ducking because it means every terrorist with a bomb has already infiltrated our borders, every criminal on the run is here - living next door to you. Come on! THINK! Your paranoia is a terrible condemnation of your country. You're making a laughing stock of the U.S. and our international reputation already sucks as it is.
"Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
I had business associates going there then. The US has NEVER embargoed travel to Pakistan, only to Cuba.
Secondly: "Three requisites, all of which must concur, for Natural Born Citizenship eligible for President of the U.S.:
1.Father must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born) and
1.Mother must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born) and
1.Must be born in US soil
A child of illegal Mexicans born in the United States is a citizen. They are called "anchor babies." There is NO statutory language that would make that child a NON natural born citizen.
So the fact taht Barack's father was not a citizen is utterly irrelevant.
NO court has ever created the standard you so blithely make up.
" And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967."
There's no such effing thing legally as "tends to prove". The Supremes have stated specifically that your parents can't renounce your citizenship, which belongs to YOU. They further have held that only through a formal renouncement can a person give up his US citizenship. It can't be taken away from you simply through some action of yours (including dual nationals voting in other countries' elections).
Why doesn’t the obama birth certificate have the infants footprints on it? No way you can state that is is truly legitmate without them. If it is because Hawaii does not require them, the system is totally bogus and unproveable and should be thrown out on that basis alone!
Just looking at my birth certificate from Kapiolani med. center and there are no footprints on it either. Wow, I must not be a citizen. Stop watching Glenn Beck.
There is no law requiring footprints. It doesn't make anything "bogus". Footprints are for hospital souvenier certificates and baby books. My son never had footprints done.
Wrong on all counts, Mr. Sandring. Please go read the Hawaii birth law and the Hawaii press release again. And read my post again because you missed half of what was in it. I explained why the Obamas might go to so much trouble to make sure the kid was a U.S citizen because, if he was born in Kenya to an underaged mother and a non-citizen father, he was not automatically a citizen under the law in 1961. The Certification is the very first word on the document Obama finally released. That word isn't "supposed." Have you even looked at the CERTIFICATION? The word "certification" is there in BLACK AND WHITE. Now read the wording at the bottom of the Certification. It says that it is "prima facie" proof. That means that it is proof ONLY if all parties in a legal proceeding accept it. As such, it is sufficient proof under most circumstances, but owing to the loophole in Hawaii birth law that allowed the filing of a delayed birth report, it is certainly not sufficient in lieu of the Long Form. As Hawaii tried to tell you, ALL the Certification says is that there is a CERTIFICATE on file, it does NOT say which one of the three kinds that were legal at that time (hospital, doctor or delayed) and it provides NO specific information about the exact time and place of birth. The state will NOT release a certified copy of the real thing UNLESS a qualified party, either OBAMA authorizes it or a court demands it. THAT IS THE LAW. They CANNOT release it on their own. Now about the papers. Papers PRINT birth announcements, they don't go get them and they don't verify them. They aren't admissible in a court of law as proof of anything. And you also don't seem to understand the Constitutional difference between the definition of citizen and the higher test of natural born citizen that is applied to the POTUS. A person could be a citizen born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents and they would past the first test and get a birth certificate just like Obama but not be qualified to be POTUS. And finally, no matter how you dance and display your failure to research this topic, you can't explain why this individual and the DNC are spending big bucks on lawyers to keep that CERTIFICATE hidden along with his college admission records which would show under what citizenship he applied there. Why would it be OK with any American for a POTUS to withhold this kind of information? McCain produced it willingly, what is Obama hiding? Go look at McCain's certificate, which is basically identical to the Hawaii hospital-issued one. There is simply no doubt WHERE and WHEN McCain was born. The ONLY way to establish similar data for Obama is for us to see his long form. Unless, of course, it is a delayed filing in which case basically it is a hearsay document. Let's see that long form, then we'll know whether there is a conspiracy or not.
Wrong on many counts--
First, in the English language, "certificate" and "certification" are synonyms, so you are making much ado about nothing.
Second, McCain never showed his birth certificate to anyone except one reporter named Michael Dobbs. There is a birth certificate on the webb purporting to be McCains, but it didn't come from McCain--it came from the court filings of a McCain birther who was suing McCain. It says John was born in an civilian hospital outside the Canal zone whole McCain says he was born on a base hospital insidet eh canal zone.
"Citizen" in the English language, refers to ANY citizen, be they natural born or naturalized. The way you are arguing it makes it sound like you think a "citizen" is some special KINF of citizen. Like as if "ice cream" denoted some special ice cream flavor rather than referring to any or all flavors.
And no, neither the DNC nor Obama himself have spent any money on this looniness.
I hope you re-think your position:
1.) The certificate of live birth is as legally valid as proof of citizenship as the supposed "certification" cited. Since the state of Hawaii says, according to your post, that it has a "certification," we can assume, by your own argument, that there is such an official certificate and that it is in the state's, not the President's possession, and that producing a copy is up to the state, not Obama.
2.) Why is it that the conspiracy theorists never respond to the point about the birth notices printed in the Honolulu newspapers—strong and contemporary supporting proof of Obama's hospital birth?
To accept such arguments as "Anonymous'" requires us to believe that back in 1961 mysterious forces set in motion an international conspiracy to identify an infant and for forty-seven years pursued a secret plan to see he became president of the United States for purposes apparent only to the conspiracy buffs.
Had Mr. Sandring looked more carefully, he would have noticed that the document Mr. Obama gave us so reluctantly is nothing but a short form CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, not the actual long form CERTIFICATE of live birth.
Yeah, the Obama CERTIFICATION is the real deal. Hawaii confirmed this in an October 31, 2008, press release which stated ONLY that IT was legitimate AND that they have a CERTIFICATE on file. Despite what the lefty press wants you to think, Hawaii did NOT say that Obama was born there. Look it up and read it, googles very easily.
The CERTIFICATE is the actual and more detailed form on file at the Hawaii Dept. of Health. It is easy to see what these look like as several from that time are posted on the web.
When you look at one of these CERTIFICATES and compare them to Mr. Obama's CERTIFICATION, the former is far more detailed as to SPECIFIC place, time and participants at the live birth.
In fact, the long form for a hospital birth has pretty much the same information that McCain's long form does, just arranged and labeled differently.
Had Mr. Sandring bothered to learn something of Hawaii law in 1961, he would know by now that there were three ways to get a Hawaii birth certificate at that time.
(1), get born in a hospital and said hospital issues a CERTIFICATE. As noted previously, you can easily find samples of this one from that time on the net.
(2): Alternatively, if not born in a hospital, the birthing physician or midwife would issue a CERTIFICATE. Again, it was far more detailed about time and place than the CERTIFICATION.
Finally, (3), Hawaii had a provision that basically worked this way: A "resident" could attest that "my kid was born here on this day" and a certificate would be issued with very little checking.
Needless to say, this one is going to have very little supporting information and what it has is hearsay.
This last one could be obtained up to a year after the actual date of birth. So it would be quite easy to have a kid a few weeks earlier somewhere else and then return to Hawaii and get a birth certificate.
In this situation, you can't assume the kid was actually born on the stated day. Who is going to know if the kid is a few weeks older than you say he is?
Because Hawaii residents who had kids out of state were using this third form either incorrectly or dishonestly to obtain a birth certificate, in 1982 Hawaii added a fourth form (under PL388 I believe) specifically for registering out of state birth.
Anyway, someone asked why would someone who had a kid out of country go to the trouble to fly back and get Certificate #3?
Because the father was not a citizen and the mother was underaged, hence the child if born on foreign soil was not a U.S. citizen.
As for the newspaper, people call them up with birth announcements and they print them. There's no checking there either.
Now let's look at Mr. Obama's behavior in light of all this.
Certainly, the first two forms of birth certificate, hospital or physician/midwife are likely to establish undeniably that he was actually born in Hawaii. Those would tell us exactly where and when, and the name of the attending physician/midwife.
Either one would probably lay this matter quickly to rest. Just as it did for McCain.
So why did Obama and the DNC lawyer up, spend upwards of a million bucks (and counting) on two law firms to keep either of these from seeing the light of day?
Because the third form, or even (unlikely but possible) the second with serious defects (missing vital information) would add real fuel to the fire. That's why.
Frankly, I don't know where this guy was born. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt but his actions are saying loud and clear that he has something to hide as to the circumstances of his birth.
I notice also that he is also hiding his college admission records which might show him registering as a citizen of another country.
I am astonished that these judges, even this Clinton appointee in D.C. that made all the prejudicial remarks, NONE OF THEM have supoenaed or even requested the long form.
To make the statements from the bench this judge did without doing that simply betrays what a biased incompetent he is.
IN FACT, no one has seen that long form. NO ONE.
Why? Why was it appropriate for McCain to willingly provide this information but it is OK for Obama to stonewall it?
And the longer this goes on, the more folks are wondering why someone who claims he has nothing to hide is working so hard to hide it.
Remember Watergate? The harder they tried to cover it up, the harder everyone dug and the rest is history.
This ain't over by a long shot.
I am in disagreement with the tone of your article since it completely ignores the larger point - is the rule of law all that important? Obama better hope so as he is making more laws than I can keep up with. Is my compliance optional as was his? Brushing aside compliance is a VERY dangerous game that goes both ways.
To answer the first question, General Howe's putative son would indeed have been eligible to succeed President Washington—presuming he met the other constitutional requirements, and could get himself elected. Approved-of parentage is not a qualification for office. In the United States, we do not visit upon the sons the sins of their fathers.
If he indeed does have the proper documents why have they not been produced.
The point is that the proper document has been produced—the same document any Hawaiian is entitled to rely on for proof of citizenship—along with independent supporting materials. The problem is that the lunatic fringe refuses to take "yes" for an answer, and goes on demanding to see "secret files," "original" documents, and the like, imagined by the cranks who manipulate them.
Certificates of Live Birth, provided by the State of Hawaii, based on its records, prove the citizenship not only of the president but of every person born in that state—even when Hawaii was a territory—whether the record was generated by computer or no.
In Virginia, birth certificates were, twenty years or more ago, reduced from birth-certificate photostats to plastic, wallet-sized cards issued from Richmond. Those plastic cards are proof for all purposes of citizenship. Even though, before she died, my mom may have misplaced her copy of my certificate of birth in Norfolk, the state recognizes my eligibility for the presidency. Vote the Standring ticket!
But, by the standards of today's paranoid fringe, no Virginian, even the Virginians in my family descended from settlers of the Second Supply in 1608, could be credited as natural born citizens if all we had to show for proof was a miserable, suspect, subject-to-manipulation, state-official, computer-generated plastic card.
Few would think of challenging our plastic card certificates for the purpose of proving citizenship.
Why would we treat differently people whom the State of Hawaii certified as being born within America's boundaries?
To the people who have responded--don't you understand that you're in the far-right fringe who just won't accept a person of color in the presidency? Would you have made the same accusations about the birth certificate if John McCain had been elected?
If Mcian did not produce the same documentation that Obama has NOT produced, all hell would break loose! Are you kidding me, why does this have to be a racist issue? I am not a recist and i can CLEARLY see something is just not right. God is revelaing a lot, so open your eyes! The devil can disquise himself as many things, and He plays upon the ignorance of this country. I think people should turn off their TV's and start praying to know the truth.
Why do you left wingers ALWAYS accuse anyone who disagrees with you as racists? Why can't we disagree and NOT be racists? Don't you have any other cogent argument to offer for our differences? I don't care if he is purple if he is honest, for the American people (which I don't think Obama is), does not have an alternative agenda (which I think Obama does), doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth (which Obama REALLY does), and is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. His color has NOTHING to do with it. So take YOUR prejudices against white people who do not disagree with you and put them where the sun doesn't shine. It has NOTHING to do with race, it has to do with LIES.
No judge has the guts to do what's right. They're all afraid of retribution. Plus once one judge says it's a "standing" issue they can all play copycat and say "phew" glad that's off my docket. Let someone handle that powder keg.
Sooner or later a judge with some guts will say wait a minute and force Obama's hand.
This isn't going away.
This case is the easiest to solve. Open the envelope the has been sealed in Hawaii. Why is Barack is concealing this birth certificate.
I remember the celebrations in Kenya and the Kenyan people thought is was so great that a boy born in Kenya could grow up to be the president of the United States.
What do
Barack Obama,
the first African-American President of the United States,
and
Sun Yat-Sen,
the first President of the Republic of China
have in common?
Yes, they were both born in Hawaii, or so they claim.
Click on this link to see Sun Yat-sen’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” despite having been born in Guangdong, China.
All the more to suspect that Obama was born in Kenya yet obtained the same infamous “Certification” in Hawaii.
What a coincidence!
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/Home/obama-short-form-birth-cert...
Barack Obama is on the ballot of every state. Certainly, this means that he filed his candidacy and made allegations in his candidacy in all these states that he is a natural born citizen. And certainly, the government agencies involved did not merely take him at his word but required his proof of natural born citizenship. Certainly, all these applications in each state have attachments proving the same. How old is he? Is he at least 35? Was he born of US parents on US soil? All these information are understood to have been given to all the government agencies who accepted his candidacy. So how come citizens are challenging Barack’s qualifications? Isn’t this the job of the government agencies to challenge the allegations of all candidates?
Answer:
This can only happen in the movies.
Incredibly, the answer is that all government officials and agencies have been gullible enough to accept everything written by any candidate without requiring proof.
Even a person like Roger Calero who is obviously, in plain sight, is not Natural Born (he was born in Nicaragua) managed to get his name on the ballots of five states. Incredible!
And now, that many citizens have been challenging Obama to prove his natural born citizenship, the government officials refused to do so on their own initiative, and even made representations in the court cases that they are not supposed to do it.
(The officials do not want to admit that they did not do their jobs of verifying Obama’s claim that he is a Natural Born Citizen! They could be in jail for malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance.)
This is a huge embarrassment for the most powerful nation in the world. That we are victims of a failure of the entire government machinery to verify statements made by candidates.
It’s a case of “somebody should have checked whether Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship is true but look, it’s not me who should be doing it” syndrome.
Status: Then Obama is NOT even a U.S. citizen at all, according to the law existing in 1961 his year of birth. (see full discussion below)
Status: Then Barack is a Citizen but NOT a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the US Constitution, law, and jurisprudence. (see full discussion below.)
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981,without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities. 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America , as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
So far Obama has shown only the SHORT FORM (which is only an abstract and contains minimal information), which is a computer-generated “secondary” evidence that is derived out of the original source document. The legal probative value of this Short-Form is practically nil in the courts of law when the information on this document is challenged legally and the challenger demands the “best evidence” which is the LONG FORM. Of course, the original source document, the “primary evidence” document, is the LONG FORM COLB. See Wigmore’s definitive textbook on Evidence.
What is a Natural Born Citizen?
Three requisites, all of which must concur, for Natural Born Citizenship eligible for President of the U.S.:
and
and
Note: In Statutory Construction, the meaning of the term has to be interpreted according to the usage of the day it was used. At the time when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, everybody knew what is meant by the term “Natural Born Citizen” and they didn’t have to define it in the Constitution itself because the latter is not a dictionary but a contract with the people. Such Contract is enforceable by any citizen bound by it, and therefore any citizen has full legal standing to question the eligibility of the candidate for the President of the U.S.
The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212 (note the reference to plural citizens):
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
John A. Bingham (the chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution): "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."
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth
http://tinyurl.com/obamafaq
The Common Sense Test
What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother?
After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen?
This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth
http://tinyurl.com/obamafaq
Post new comment