Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama Misplaying the “Birther” Card

Obama Misplaying the “Birther” Card

At one level, Obama and his supporters have played the “Birther” issue brilliantly. By refusing to release his birth certificate and by equating a demand that Obama release his birth certificate with being a racist, Obama has created the single most toxic charge that can be leveled in current politics.

The Birther card is the new race card, trotted out under strained circumstances in an attempt to discredit political opponents.

We saw this tactic directed by prominent left-wing bloggers against Scott Brown based on demonstrably false factual premises. Brown never questioned whether Obama was born in Hawaii, never raised the issue, and never spoke about the issue, yet was accused of being a Birther.

The use of the Birther card is uni-directional. When Andrew Sullivan wrote that Obama should release his birth certificate, he was not subjected to the type of venom from the left as others and was not excommunicated. There is a principled position that anyone who aspires to a constitutional office should prove with the best evidence available that he or she satisfies the constitutional requirements. But since this test has not been applied prior to Obama, raising such an issue leaves one open to charges of racism.

(Added: While other candidates, including John McCain, have had their constitutional qualification questioned, in McCain’s case because he was born in the Panama canal zone, the documentation or level of proof never before has been the issue, as far as I am aware)

The Birther charge now forms the core of the Democrats’ strategy to paint all opponents as crazy. When Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) took to the floor of the Senate to denounce opponents of the Democratic health care plans, the Birther accusation was part of his attack.

It is a strategy which is foolish because it conflates those who question Obama’s citizenship (a relatively small percentage of the population) with those who question his policies (a relatively large percentage of the population), but it is the Democratic strategy.

Tellingly, Whitehouse’s popularity has plummeted since he made his Birther accusations, as voters in heavily Democratic Rhode Island reacted with disgust at such tactics.

In additional to pissing off (how’s that for an analytical term?) people who question Obama’s policies, the use of the Birther card has not resolved anything. Questions about Obama’s birth, whether real or imagined, merely have been driven underground rather than being refuted.

I wrote last July that the result of these tactics had been to raise the issue of Obama’s birth in the public consciousness:

Media Matters, Think Progress, and a host of left-wing blogs all became obsessed with the Birther theory and movement in the past month [July 2009], as opposition mounted to Obama’s health care plans. What better than to distract attention.

But it is backfiring. It’s like telling people not to think about something, which virtually guarantees they will think about it.

Last October, I wrote of a stunning PPP poll which showed that 26% of those polled did not think Obama loved America, while another 14% said they were not sure. I wrote at the time:

It is quite startling that 40% of the population either thinks Obama does not love his country or is not sure. That would seem to form a pretty solid anti-Obama base. Based on ethnic/racial background, the totals were 36% for Hispanics, 47% for Whites, and 8% for Blacks. The Hispanic number is surprisingly high.

I would be interested in seeing a similar poll today; I bet the results would be even worse for Obama.

The Birther issue may not be the reason why 40% of the population questioned whether Obama loved America (and there would be no logic to it anyway, since one does not need to be born here to love America). But there is no denying that the issue is hanging out there under the surface.

When even Obama feels compelled equate those who question his policies with those who question his citizenship, as Obama did the other day, it is a sign that the issue has not gone away and is eating away at the Obama presidency.

By using the Birther accusation as a political tool to be used against opponents regardless of circumstances, Obama and his supporters have won the battle, but they are losing the war.

And I think Obama and his supporters know it, but they are unable to do anything about it because they have painted themselves into a political corner.

——————————————–
Related Posts:
Coakley Supporters Fabricate Birther Accusation Against Brown
Dems Can’t Unring The Birther Bell
Swift Birthers

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

"In addition to pissing off (how's that for an analytical term)people…."

LOL – you have made my day, once again! Perfect analysis, and a wonderfully appropriate "term" to use.

The Birthers are not the issue. The issue is the U.S. Constitution. The first paragraph of the United States Supreme Court's website makes the following promise to the American People – “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.” To date, the United States Supreme Court has failed to do anything in furtherance of the search for the truth about Obama's natural born citizen status. Furthermore, not one single solitary person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or the rest of the Judicial branch of government has done anything other than accept Obama’s posted Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace.

Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a scant summary document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”

At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed scant summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.

In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to obtain a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Five of the six procedures lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud. That said, an “official” state-issued document that summarizes a document that lacks adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness is not worth the paper it is printed on. Scans of the original Hawaii Revised Laws from that era can be found at http://birther.com.

I'll close this post with a quote: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Professor Jacobson, have you ever thought about asking your students to state what evidence Obama has submitted to prove that he meets the eligibility requirements to be president? Would they cite his posted Certification of Live Birth as the only evidence? Would they know that it is merely a scant summary, and not a copy, of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii DOH? Have any of your students ever read the Hawaii Revised Laws in effect during the time of Obama's birth that governed the vital records procedures? Have they ever considered the other issues that are raised on my site http://birther.com? I have scans of these laws on my site.

On a somewhat related note, if the Certification of Live Birth was the only evidence cited in a fact pattern on an evidence exam, would you accept a one-liner answer from your students that read, "It is conclusive evidence of a birth because it is a state-issued printout document."? I think not, at least not at Cornell.

The issue is here reverse racism. BECAUSE Obama is black this issue will never be examined, nor will the issue of how he managed to collect donations through credit cards at the level he did. (I'm with the group that thinks he took in a lot of foreign contributions.)

Even if someone proved he wasn't born in Hawaii but was born to an American citizen, do you think we'd risk civil war with the radical African-American population? (Think hundreds or thousands like the two mooks standing in front of the voting place in Philly, bused around and supported by radical unions.)

In my book, I have characters like that being used as a domestic enforcement unit (think Guardian Angels on steroids, or the SA)for the president. Do you think Obama's DOJ would step in? http://www.revoltthebook.com

This case is settled by an election. Facts will not undo it unless Obama gets so unpopular to ALL citizens they want him out. And that's not going to happen. Especially with a core group of democrats recently surveyed actually loving the idea of socialism.

Obama was a British subject at birth:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/24/british-law-declares-obama-a-british-citizen/

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" as is required by our Consitution!

http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.html

But, apparently, no one gives a sh*t about our Constitution–or the danger of a President with dual loyalties (or loyalties to another country period).

Obama spent taxpaers' money traveling to Kenya to campaign for his 'cousin' Raila Odinga who stated publicly that, if elected, he would instite Sharia law into Kenya.

But, once again…no one cares.

The birth certificate issue is "hanging out there under the surface" for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the dispensation by which Obama is not expected to comply with laws and traditions that have always been respected by previous presidential candidates, whether or not they were rascals at heart.

Every American has had to present reams of identification to prove their qualification for positions far less momentous than POTUS. Yet Obama gets a pass.

Every time an American has to dig through his or her files to produce a stack of records to comply with some legislature's or agency's idea of a great new regulation, it grates. The fact that Obama doesn't even have to produce a birth certificate just rubs our noses in it. It's bad enough that Obama believes he is above the law, but many Americans feel it is shameful that he is allowed to get away with it without question.

Everyone knows that politicians bend the law here and there, but most of us do expect them to show enough respect for the law and for those of us who follow the law to at least be clandestine about their law-bending. But on Obama's farm, we are told outright that some animals are more equal than others, based largely on political party and political fashion. That rankles, and it will continue to rankle, on the surface or underneath.

It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof should rest on him.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.

I tell you what I am going to do, the next time I apply for a job I am going to tell the prospective employer to prove that I don't meet their job requirements. Afterwards, I will visit my girlfriend and tell her to prove that I don't love her.

Whilst it is not a good idea to allow focus on this question of birth certificate, I think that the issue is festering so much that all of the relevant records need to be produced.

In Australia when I needed to get a passport I had to have the proper birth certificate. It could not be the extract (which is what the won has produced) It must be the govt stamped ridgy didge real deal. As a result I had to apply to the Melbourne registry office to get my certificate (I had one but it went missing)…. On top of that my marriage certificate signed by the person who officiated at our wedding was not good enough. My husband had to apply to the NSW registry office to get the proper certificate.

If this is required in Australia, why then is an extract acceptable as a document for something as important as POTUS? It makes no sense at all.

However, there are other aspects here. His mother married an Indonesian citizen and she went to live in Indonesia. School records show that the Indonesian is listed as Barry's "father" – in this case adopted father. The question of citizenship is raised because Barry would not have been allowed to go to school like that if he was not considered an Indonesian citizen at the time. If he was made an Indonesian citizen, then the issue arises as to whether or not he then sought to be a US citizen again, since at the time there was no dual citizenship.

Others have raised the fact that the won traveled to Pakistan (probably to see his mother) when he was an adult student. It was at a time when US citizens were not allowed to travel to Pakistan. How did he get a passport and permission to go there?

These are some of the citizenship issues, but there are questions about his academic record and employment history. Nothing has surfaced regarding his academic record. All other Presidents and candidates have supplied their records. If they were produced would it prove this intelligence thing to be crap? You know the alleged high IQ that puts the won above everyone else – even when he shows no sign of having any wisdom. Even as editor of the Harvard Law Review he did not produce any articles… no papers… nada zip zilch.

There are just so many things that remain unanswered as far as I can see.

The question of the "natural born citizen" must be answered. It must get to the Supreme Court and answered However, most conservative pundits like Morrisey would like for this to just go w=away. Why? Because you don't want to be called raaaaacist? Oh, It's not a winning issue. Good grief! Who cares about winning a political game when the Constitution is at stake?
Either it's the Law or it's not!

I'm telling you now, it is this issue which will bring down the one. And it will not be the "birthers", or conservatives, or the republicans who will do it. It will be the Democrats themselves! To get rid of this monstrosity they've allowed to get in power, someday soon, the Democrat big shots will get tired of this buffoon and get the info themselves and use it themselves.

Re: "Refusing to release."

Obama has released his birth certificate. He posted on his site and showed the physical copy to both FactCheck and Politifact, and Factcheck posted excellent photographs of it. Yes, the document posted was the Certification of Live Birth, but that is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii releases. It no longer releases copies of the original.

That being the case, Obama has not refused because he has already provided the official birth certificate. And, that being the case, Obama also cannot provide the original birth certificate because he does not have it. He asked Hawaii for his birth certificate in 2007, and Hawaii sent him the Certification of Live Birth, which is what it sends to everyone.

Obama only has the certification. That is all that he can show unless Hawaii changes its regulations.

However, the Certification is the legal document, and it is sufficient. It is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

Professor,

I know we are on opposite ends of the issue here, but thanks for giving me reason to smile and let out a little chuckle.

I now leave you with a bit of history from Mr Washington and his warning to us in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government…

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests

Re: Pakistan.

Because there was no problem going to Pakistan at all. It was not on any "no travel list," and it did not bar US citizens from visiting for tourisim. In fact, it encouraged them with 30-day visas on arrival. Pakistan was relatively peaceful in those days, so peaceful that US newspapers wrote travel articles recommending visiting places like "scenic Lahore."

Obama did not have a British passport, as the British embassy in Washington will confirm, and he did not have an Indonesian passport, as the Indonesian embassy in Washington will confirm. However, he did have a US passport, which he used to travel from Hawaii to Indonesia with his mother, and then back from Indonesia to Hawaii to attend high school.

SMRSTRAUSS, is this you? – http://paulstrauss.org/about-senator-strauss

Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an "official" birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama's birth, five of which lacked adequate indicia of reliability.

Do you know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Was it the one with a doctor's signature and hospital documentation, or was it one of the five other ones, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC?

Consider this hypo – state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an "official" scant summary of the "original" birth certificate." The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at http://birther.com that would have allowed such a thing to happen.

I don't need to tell you about these things. You already know them. You've been posting about these issues since 2008, haven't you?

Now, about Obama not being able to get a copy of his original birth certificate. Can you cite an Hawaiian law supporting your claim?

My son was really upset when my wife took him to the DMV for a learner's permit and was turned down because he didn't have the correct record of his birth. It's ironic that the standard of proof for driving in Maryland is stricter that it is to run for President of the United States.

Re: "It's ironic that the standard of proof for driving in Maryland is stricter that it is to run for President of the United States."

The birth certificate that Obama has posted is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. It is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by ALL the departments of Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL; I checked), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

The birth certificate that Obama has posted is accepted for drivers licenses. And, in Obama's case, the two top officials of the Hawaii DoH (both members of a Republican governor's administration) have said twice that the facts on the posted certificate are confirmed by the facts on the original document in the files.

New information: DOH has revealed that in the last 6 months before Obama announced his run for the presidency he amended his birth record in Hawaii. That amendment was before the Factcheck COLB was printed in June of 2007 so if that COLB was legitimate it would definitely have had note of the amendment.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2010/02/birth-certification-amended-after-45.html

This is based on the speculations of a birther based on her interpretation of a response to a question that we do not know. If and when the DoH says that Obama's birth certificate was amended, there would be a report from the DoH saying that the birth certificate was amended.

Please remember that the DoH in Hawaii is under a Republican governor. It has no reason to conceal an amendment, if there were one. There was not amendment. There is only a birther speculating that there was an amendment.

Instead, we have the two top officials in Hawaii saying that the original document in the files confirms the COLB and that Obama was born in Hawaii.

This is confirmed by a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii, and it is confirmed by his Kenyan grandmother, who says that he was born IN HAWAII.

Great post. I agree that the birther issue is being misused by the administration, but perhaps not quite as you've outlined it here. I think that this president is still playing a game, running a campaign, and that his minions are all in campaign mode, too. Instead of rising above things that shouldn't touch them (like the birther issue, Palin writing on her hand, Fox News, and a zillion other things), they engage in them, roll around in the mud and belittle more and more Americans in the process. Not just birthers, but ANYONE who expresses dissent is painted with the same brush, as you've explained here. WE are not the enemy, but he treats us as if we are political opponents rather than citizens of the country he claims to love and that he is the leader of. That is the root of his problem, and he'll (apparently) never grow into the role of president.

I tend to agree. The COLB is simply not sufficient to prove Obama's Hawaiin birth. Under ordinary circumstances, the COLB would be fine. But given the mountain of circumstancial evidence that points to a Kenyan birth, the COLB simply won't cut it.

If Obama orders a certified copy of his BC, he will receive the COLB that supposely released. However, Hawaiin Laws allows for vital records to made public those who have direct tangible interest.

To date, Obama has absolutely refused any party access to the vital records. (He could constent and allow someone on his behalf to access the vital records which would include the long form BC.) Obama has spent 1.5 million dollars of both his personal and taxpayer's money to prevent release of such vital records.

The Circumstancial Evidence that points to a Kenyan Birth for Obama.

1. Grandmother in Kenya stated she was present at Obama's birth in Kenya. Although the Grandmother changed her story its clear from audio recording and from those who submitted the affidavits that the grandmother was being coached into saying he was born in Hawaii.
2. A Kenyan Ambassador was interviewed by radio program the day after the election affirmed Obama's Kenyan birth by stating that it is a well-known place in Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador changed his story when he "got caught" saying he was confused but the ambassador didn't sound confused on the radio program.
3. Numerous media accounts and stories stating that Obama was Kenyan-Born.
4. Conflicting accounts of what hospital Obama was born at.
5. The Kenyan Assembly virtually affirming Obama's Kenyan birth and declaring a national holiday for him in Kenya.
6. Bill Richardson's affirmation that Obama is an immigrant.
7. Lucas Smith's Obama Kenyan BC – It has neither been authenticated nor refuted.
9. The lack of any firsthand witnesses to Obama's birth in Hawaii.
10. Accounts from persons that Obama told them he was born in Kenya
11. Obama's refusal to release his vital records.

All this evidence adds up.

smrstrauss:

You are well-known as one of Obama's Flying Monkeys jumping about from blog to blog posting misinformation (and outright lies) as well as information having nothing to do with the matter but which you obviously hope will confuse those who've not researched the matter.

NONE of the material produced by Obama or his myrmidons (including you) have ever begun to rise to the level to begin to prove anything.

In fact Onama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies and – were you being honest – you'd openly admit that instead of this trash-talking you continually do.

Shadow Senators should at least TRY to be honest.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he's merely a statutory US citizen, and NO STATUTORY US CITIZEN CAN EVER BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

So when you prove he's a US citizen, you prove him ineligible. This is because a statutory US citizen is so by graciousness of American laws which define a person with any other nation-tie as a US Citizen.

A Natural Born Citizen has no other nation ties. This is why Minor v. Happersett stated that the definition of Natural Born Citizen is not in the 14th amendment/US Code 1401, and indeed it is not.

Any permutation which is in USC1401 is not a natural born citizen. Both McCain and Obama are statutory US citizens.

A natural born citizen has both parents as US citizens, child born on US soil.

It is the fact of Obama's father never being a US Citizen which makes him only a statutory citizen. Jindal is neither eligible.

This is the great big pink elephant in the living room, it requires no conspiracy belief, since the facts are spelled out right there in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

From The Post & Email, February 10, 2010:
“OK Candidate releases son’s 1981 Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth–DOCUMENT CONFIRMS INVESTIGATORS’ SUSPICIONS, EXPOSES DOH AS LYING”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/10/ok-candidate-releases-sons-1981-hawaiian-certification-of-birth/

HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/

SMRSTRAUSS, many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you? If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an “official” birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.

Do you know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary?

Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable evidence.

One more thing. Assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, tell me what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?

It doesn't matter if Obama was born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Obama was born with dual citizenship because his father was a Kenyan. How can one be a "natural born citizen" and born with dual citizenship?

Constituional qualifications for US Representative, Senator, and POTUS are progressively more restrictive, reflecting increasingly higher standards to countenance the investment of power in each of those offices. The "natural born citizen" requirement is reserved only of the highest office in the land.

A natural born citizen is an incontrovertable status as conferred by natural law, by both blood and soil, born on US soil of parents both of whom are citizens. Any diminishment of that qualification through man-made law (like equivocations such as "only one US citizen parent is permissiable as long as the child is born on US soil") contravenes the Framers' intentions. It also diminishes the national security device purposefully included in the phrase, "natural born citizen," which secures the greatest possible protections for the undivided loyalty of our singular Commander-in-Chief.

Re: “How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Yes. I agree. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to the legal birth certificate and the repeated confirmation of the two top officials of the DoH of Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor’s administration. And due to the fact that you could not get (with some exceptions that always required delays, and which would have been noted by the two Republican officials) a BC in Hawaii that said “born in Hawaii” on it, unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii.

Re: “Do you know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? “

It was the hospital record with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation. (Because there was NO delay.)

Re: “one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? “

It could not be any of the other five because they all required delays of at least a month.

There was no mail-in form allowing a person to receive a Hawaiian BC with the words “born in Hawaii” on it. In order to receive a Hawaiian BC with the words “born in Hawaii” on it, the child either had to be born in a hospital with the documentation you list, or there had to be a witnessed statement that required a delay of at least a month before the BC could be issued. We know that there was no delay because of the date of the publication of the notices in the newspapers.

Re: “No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary?”

Since independent witnesses WERE required, this is irrelevant. It is like saying, if your grandmother had wheels she would be a Ford pickup. She didn’t have wheels, and Hawaii required witnesses.

Re: “Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement … the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes.”

The notices in the newspapers you refer to were NOT placed by individuals as advertisements. They were sent out by the government of Hawaii, as has been amply reported in the Hawaii newspapers, and can be demonstrated by the fact that they are all in the same format. The Hawaii newspapers did not accept individual notices of birth at the time UNLESS they saw the birth certificate. And they did not put those notices in with the notices generated by the government.

Re: “in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. “

Not without proof that there was a birth from some witness, and never a birth certificate that said “born in Hawaii” on it unless the witness also certified that the child was born in Hawaii.

Re: “The state registrar would then send that information to the papers.”

Hawaii would not register a birth without a witness, and for any BC other than one generated by a normal birth in a hospital, there would have had to have been a delay of at least a month. There was no delay. This indicates there was a birth in a hospital. Moreover, the two top officials of the Hawaii DoH have twice said that the original document in the files confirms Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961.

Re: ‘ So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable evidence.”

It tends to confirm the date of birth. It shows absolutely that there could not be any form of original BC other than a normal hospital BC because there was no delay.

Re: “One more thing. Assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, tell me what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?”

Absolutely nothing. He can say that. In fact that is true.

He cannot show it (because he does not have it), but he CAN say it. But (1) has anyone asked him? And (2), would you believe it if he said it?

I would because that is the fact. The original document in the files IS the one generated by the hospital with all the evidence that you cite.

As I have said before, it is not Obama who prevents this document from being released. It is Hawaii, which has said repeatedly that it does not release the original birth certificate anymore. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

I have said, though I am not sure that I said on this site, that I would be delighted to see the original because it will show that Obama was born in Hawaii in K Hospital, as he has said (his sister was misquoted as saying Q). But that is Hawaii’s business. If you would like Hawaii to change that rule or the law in order to release the original, I would support that. The method is to petition the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican.

Hawaii apparently thinks that this is not necessary, and that is its decision. But the fact that Hawaii does not release the original does not change the facts that Obama posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii and that it says “born in Hawaii” on it, and that it was not possible (except for foundlings and adoptions apparently, and they required delay) to get a BC that said ‘born in Hawaii” unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that the two officials, members of a Republican governor’s administration, have twice stated that the facts on the original document confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Re: “ It doesn't matter if Obama was born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Obama was born with dual citizenship because his father was a Kenyan. How can one be a "natural born citizen" and born with dual citizenship?”

Because the original meaning of Natural Born, the one that applies to Obama, just means “born in the USA.” (McCain fell under the two US parent category of Natural Born, which was created by statute, and has been questioned by some. The original meaning, which is unquestioned, was simply “born in the country.”)

Re: “The "natural born citizen" requirement is reserved only of the highest office in the land.”

Yes. Naturalized citizens are not allowed to be president.

Re: “ A natural born citizen is an incontrovertable status as conferred by natural law, by both blood and soil, born on US soil of parents both of whom are citizens.”

Baloney. Here is the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary: ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

Obama falls under the first of these, due to his proven birth in Hawaii.

Re: “contravenes the Framers' intentions.”

I have done considerable research on this, and I have found quite a few quotations from the framers using Natural Born, and not one of them used it as “two citizen parents.” They simply used it to mean “born in the country,” which stems from the Common Law. If they had meant Natural Born to mean something other than the use in common law (and in the laws of some of the colonies and early states), they would have said so.

Re: “It also diminishes the national security device purposefully included in the phrase, "natural born citizen," which secures the greatest possible protections for the undivided loyalty of our singular Commander-in-Chief.”

According to James Madison, the one criterion of allegiance to a country is birth in the country.

He said “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.” (In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789.) And Blackstone wrote that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country of his birth.

And so, that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

smrstrauss –

"Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition?" Oh, please.

Nice try, but that was not published (first published in 1891) until more than 100 years after adoption of the US Constitution (1787), so it is completely irrelevant. (But you knew that, right?)

Check instead a contemporaneous and popular legal reference, Vattel's Law of Nations, which says, "…natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." (That's "parents," plural.)

You cite, "Madison." I cite, "John Jay," specifically, his 1787 letter to Washington, which said, "Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to; to-may-to, to-mah-to; whatever.

Would you approve if Obama's father had been Nikita Khruschev, and he had been raised in the USSR for several years as a child? Not me. Same difference.

Let's not muck up Mr. Jacobson's blog with a citation snowball fight. Let's both ask the US Supreme Court to earn their keep and rule on this issue as they should have done before the 2008 general election.

Re: "Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition?" Oh, please.

I was using it to sum up the opinion of constitutional scholars today. The overwhelming consensus of such scholars is that a Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen who was not naturalized.

All citizens at birth fall into that category. That is why Yale Law review wrote: "It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

These, of course, are recent statements. If you would like one from Adams or Hamilton, I'd be glad to post it.

NOTICE: COMMENTS ON THIS POST NOW ARE CLOSED.

Word has spread that smrstrauss is plying his opposition trade on your blog, so I thought you might like to see the article that was published about him just last night. His presence on conservative blogs raises a number of interesting questions.

Exposé: Obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/02/expose-obot-smrstrauss-finally-unmasked.html

Okay, now comments really are CLOSED, everyone has had their say.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend