Posted under "Birther" & Obama
As I mentioned in the post below, Jerome Corsi’s new book Where’s the Birth Certificate was released today. Corsi has a lot of radio interviews lined up. This is from his Facebook page:
Book in the stores tomorrow. If it becomes a bestseller, the Obama eligibility issue will not go away. I start radio with Sean Hannity tomorrow. We have two weeks of back-to-back radio already scheduled. Obama lied. He was not born in Hawaii. Starting tomorrow, I plan to tell the whole story.
This is from the linked article:
“With the unprecedented success of this book several weeks ago, reaching No. 1 at Amazon, I fully expected Obama, in desperation, to release a fraudulent document – and that’s exactly what he did,” said Corsi. “I was warned by excellent sources it was coming. And it’s not even a good forgery. I am prepared to tell all beginning today – not only about the birth certificate, but also to explain why even a birth on U.S. soil could not possibly qualify Obama for the presidency as a natural born citizen.”…
… Corsi’s first nationwide interview takes place on the Sean Hannity radio show this afternoon. He follows that up with appearances on hundreds of other radio and television shows.
“Obama tried to preempt this book with the release of a document he had been hiding with good reason for two-and-a-half years,” said Corsi. “However, he has done himself in by counting on a compliant media to simply accept it at face value as authentic. It is not. Now he will have to face the music for attempting to deceive the American public and defraud the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.”
On April 27, with great fanfare, Obama finally released his “birth certificate” after years of stonewalling, after spending a fortune on attorneys to block its release and defend against dozens of lawsuits brought by citizens wanting to see it, after claiming he had already released it and after ridiculing everybody who said he had not released it.
Yet a stunning Gallup Poll taken more than a week later (May 5-8) shows more than half of all Americans remain unconvinced Obama was born in the U.S.
Reportedly, the book also covers the original intent of the phrase “natural born citizen” and the Connecticut Social Security number issue.
Corsi makes the bold claim above that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Personally, I would not make that claim because even if his long form birth certificate is fraudulent, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t born in Hawaii. But on an issue where a lot of people make a lot of claims that are speculative or not accurate, Corsi has always been well informed and careful about what he says so maybe he has sufficient grounds to make that claim. Anyway, I wish Dr. Corsi great success with the sale of his book and hope he represents those of us with doubts about the Obama narrative well.
Jeff Marchand on 18 May 2011 at 8:45 am #
What is he looking for actually?
Hunter Rose on 18 May 2011 at 3:22 pm #
The release of Obama’s LFBC will satisfy none of these people. You see; no piece of paper will ever turn him white.
RedPhillips on 18 May 2011 at 3:43 pm #
“no piece of paper will ever turn him white.”
Just as nothing will ever turn a Cultural Marxist PC thought slave into someone who isn’t a grandstanding self-loather.
Ellen1 on 18 May 2011 at 4:19 pm #
Obama was born in Hawaii, as his two Hawaii birth certificates, the confirmation of three Republican officials in Hawaii, and the notices in the Hawaii newspapers of his birth in 1961 all show. There is also the absence of any US travel document showing that Obama traveled from a foreign country to the USA in 1961. I am referring to either a US visa or for him to have been entered on his mother’s US passport. Either of which, or the applications for them, would have been found in the eight years in which the Republicans were in charge of the US State Department.
The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY was that not one member in the 100 Senators and 435 members of the House thought that the citizenship of Obamas’ father has any effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status, and the US Supreme Court has turned down every birther case.
Unless Obama’s father was a foreign diplomat (and he wasn’t) the fact that the father was a foreign citizen has no effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.
“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
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
There is nothing in either of these definitions that requires that a child born in the USA (which Obama was) have two or even one citizen parent. the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, ruled six to two (one not voting) that every child born in the country is Natural Born–the same definition as Blackstone. A person who is both a citizen and Natural Born is, wait for it, a Natural Born citizen.
RedPhillips on 18 May 2011 at 6:18 pm #
Ugh! So much misinformation, so little time…
1.) First of all Ellen, I have never said Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, and as I said above, I regret that Corsi has made that claim definitively. I do not believe Obama was born in Kenya. I simply believe it is likely, in all the documents he is refusing to release, that he is hiding embarrassing information.
2.) Regarding the two birth certificates Obama has released, there is credible forensic evidence that they are not authentic. The way to answer this charge is not to stamp your feet and say “yes they are,” but to provide a credible alternative forensic analysis that says they are authentic. To accept what Obama, who clearly has a stake in the outcome, has presented at face value is to be deliberately incurious.
I do not assert dogmatically that the birth certificates have been tampered with because I am not an expert in forensic document analysis and the debate is beyond my knowledge base, but I have seen credible claims that they are. One problem with this whole debate is that it has been waged by stakeholders on either side with no disinterested referee to sort through the noise. If our press was doing its job that is what they would be doing, but instead our supposedly neutral press has actually been a stakeholder for Obama. So most (all?) of the forensic analysis I have seen has been from people on the “birther” side.
If our press was doing its job, the moment the long form bc was released by the White House the NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, etc. should have hired independent forensic document specialists to examine it. Did they? Of course not, at least not that I have seen. They accepted it at face value like a bunch of completely incurious dullards and/or Obama partisans. So the analysis has mostly come from amateur sleuths or professionals retained by “birther” stakeholders.
Surely you would agree that both documents should undergo rigorous forensic evaluation by several disinterested professionals, would you not? I’m not sure on what grounds anyone interested in the truth would object to that.
3.) Re. the “Natural Born Citizen” clause, for me as an originalist and a constitutionalist, this is a question of ORIGINAL INTENT. What was the original intent of the Founders when they placed that clause into the Constitution? A credible case can be made that they did intend to exclude someone born with dual citizenship (as was the case with Obama), although from my cursory and amateur look at the issue, it is unlikely that a serious originalist analysis would be absolutely definitive. It is more likely to be a case of preponderance of the evidence. This is one of the more interesting elements of the “birther” debate and I look forward to reading Corsi’s take on it.
But whatever the case may be, we can be sure that what Black’s Law Dictionary SIXTH EDITION says, HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. What matters is what the Originalist Law Dictionary, Founder’s Edition says. Also, the Wong Kim Ark case is not relevant. It was a case (disasterously wrongly decided BTW) that addressed the 14th Amendment issue of so-called “birth-right” citizenship. It has nothing to do with the “natural born citizen” clause regarding Presidential eligibility because the 14th Amendment was not intended to modify it.
JohnC on 18 May 2011 at 6:55 pm #
“Re. the “Natural Born Citizen” clause, for me as an originalist and a constitutionalist, this is a question of ORIGINAL INTENT. What was the original intent of the Founders when they placed that clause into the Constitution? A credible case can be made that they did intend to exclude someone born with dual citizenship (as was the case with Obama), although from my cursory and amateur look at the issue, it is unlikely that a serious originalist analysis would be absolutely definitive. It is more likely to be a case of preponderance of the evidence. This is one of the more interesting elements of the “birther” debate and I look forward to reading Corsi’s take on it.”
Let’s have a look at original intent:
“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.”
– James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution, speaking in May 1789, less than one year after the Constitutional Convention. From Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton.
Matt Weber on 18 May 2011 at 7:22 pm #
Red, you have to let this go. It’s over. You won, Obama was forced to show his long form. There was nothing there. Time to move on.
RedPhillips on 18 May 2011 at 7:37 pm #
JohnC, I have seen that quote before, and it is clearly relevant but needs to be contextualized. If I recall correctly, the quote had to do with the first naturalization act, not the natural born citizen clause per se but it does potentially help us determine what the Founders had in mind. I have seen others quotes that seem to argue against eligibility for someone with dual citizenship at birth.
An originalist scholar would weigh all the evidence, not just pick a few quotes. As I said, the answer is not likely to be definitive but will likely rely on the weight of the evidence.
One reason there hasn’t been much in the way of a definitive originalist look at the issue is because there was surprisingly little said about it. That is why you run into the same quotes over and over on both sides.
RedPhillips on 18 May 2011 at 7:43 pm #
I’m sorry Matt, but you have to answer the forensic criticisms of both birth certificates and you don’t do that with assertion or hand waving or foot stomping. You do it with alternative forensic analysis.
And no one has even attempted an explanation for the Connecticut Social Security number. Am I supposed to just “let that go” also? Why?
RedPhillips on 18 May 2011 at 7:49 pm #
Matt, how did we find out the George W. Bush National Guard letters were fakes? By amateur forensic analysis which the press had missed. Is Obama’s BC exempt from the same kind of scrutiny the Bush National Guard letters received? On what grounds?
Ellen1 on 18 May 2011 at 8:53 pm #
What would be the point in forging a Hawaii birth certificate when Obama was born in Hawaii? And the evidence of him being born in Hawaii is overwhelming.
You say that you think that he might be hiding something. Well, what could that be? TWO Republican officials saw the original birth certificate in the files and they saw the image that the White House published, and they could easily have stated that there was a factual difference, but they didn’t.
As for the document being “forged.” The director of health of Hawaii stated in writing that she had seen the original being copied, and the copy was exactly the same as the original.
The document expert hired by Fox News said that there was nothing wrong with the long-form birth certificate http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/. The claims of “layers” are explained by the simple fact that that is the way Adobe handles documents, particularly complex documents. The claims of “kerning” have been explained by the fact that that is the way some letters look when manual typewriters skip.
Re the definition of Natural Born Citizen. The intent of the founders can be seen easily by the way that they used the term Natural Born all their lives. A search of the writings of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson (a prominent lawyer at the constitutional convention), James Madison, and yes, John Jay, shows that they NEVER used the phrase Natural Born to refer to the parents of a citizen or to exclude citizens who happened also to be dual nationals. NEVER. They only used the phrase in the same way that Blackstone did, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.
Clearly they wanted some protection against foreign influence, but there is NO evidence that they did not think that requiring that the president be a US citizen and NOT naturalized, and that he had lived in the USA for 14 years was not sufficient.
It is difficult to imagine the founders really worrying all that much about foreign influence, when they actually allowed members of the US Supreme Court to be FOREIGN CITIZENS. (There is not eligibility requirement for the Supreme Court) and when they allowed a person of, say, 66 to become president even if he had lived only 14 years of his life in the USA. In other words, they allowed someone to live a majority of a life, in this case 79% of it, overseas. That’s not worrying about foreign influence.
The key fact, however, is simply that Natural Born at the time that the US Constitution was written simply referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth. Meese was right when his book said:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And, by the way, the US Supreme Court has turned down every birther case.
Matt Weber on 18 May 2011 at 9:15 pm #
“Is Obama’s BC exempt from the same kind of scrutiny the Bush National Guard letters received? On what grounds?”
Yes. Because nobody cares. That’s the way it is, like it or not. To almost everyone, natural born citizen means born in the US. It doesn’t matter about original intent because no one cares about original intent, nor are any of the Founders around to defend their original thinking. If we wrote a new constitution tomorrow, the natural born citizen clause probably wouldn’t be in it, because that would be bigoted and possibly exclude better candidates. That’s who we are now, you might as well accept it.
C Bowen on 19 May 2011 at 12:03 am #
I think the remnant of the anti-anti-Communist Left are on the right track with the CIA/Military Intelligence/Power Elite angles regarding Obama and his mother/mother’s family, and Corsi, though I haven’t read the book, might be chasing the small fish by accident, or who knows, design.
LeadOn on 19 May 2011 at 10:17 am #
Politicians can become president. Only leaders can effectively serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Teenagers and young adults who proudly don uniforms of our armed forces, fight our wars, and many who return from battle crippled or dead, have far more integrity than Obama.
See The Military’s Moral Dilemma article at World Net Daily.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117857
How can Obama stand saluting over the caskets of America’s youth returning home from war in flagged-draped coffins when he cannot lead them by his example?
AmericaFirst on 19 May 2011 at 10:17 am #
The only reason Obama released the phony long-form when he did was to try and stop 13 states from approving legislation this spring and summer requiring eligibility vetting before candidates’ names can appear on ballots. For some states, the long-form will suffice…unless the people of the state raise the validity of the document. Other states are demanding more comprehensive requirements for evidence (like legal investigation and ruling on his father not being a U.S. citizen, his use of a foreign passport as an adult, any foreign student status or financial aid as one). He also probably released it to delay and put into brief tailspins some eligibility court cases against him that were gaining significant legal standing.
Obama surely didn’t want to show any of his cards, let alone lay a high one down on the table. This was a necessary step of desperate temporary survival. A stupid move. Now the issue of his father’s foreign citizenship will be center stage, an issue which cannot conveniently be hidden deep in Hawaii’s halls of darkness. It demands judicial ruling under full public, national scrutiny. That alone could keep him off 2012 ballots in some states.
Team Obama is flapping around like a dying fish on a beach, until early next year when a legal tsunami hits them in several states. Dems will ride everything on one candidate and have all this come down on them…and unfortunately on America. But Obama doesn’t care about America, or Hawaii, or Illinois, or Kenya, or anyone forced or freely covering up for him. He’s selfish and will implode.
HawaiiSurfer on 19 May 2011 at 10:43 am #
Brian Schatz signs official campaign document showing missing statement that presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207197
Brian Schatz, Hawaii’s new Lt Governor and former State Democratic Party Chair during the 2008 election, signed a state certification letter authorizing the Obama-Biden ticket to be on Hawaii’s ballot. Brian knew full-well this Aug 27, 08 document he authorized, signed and released was crafted with wording “clearly omitting” the certification the presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified. In stark contrast, two predecessors from Brian’s own Hawaii Democratic Party, Brikwood Galuteria and Alfred Lardizabul, did the right thing by clearly certifying John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 as Constitutionally qualified candidates. If we went back further in time, we’d probably find Brian’s actions as Democratic Party Chair are in clear contrast to far more than just documentation of the last few presidential elections. Brian most likely is not to fault in everything related to this. Many hands across our nation appear to have been deep in the cookie jar. The democratic party was fed a bad deal with what is clearly one of the biggest frauds in American history. Good people should have stopped it. Brian Schatz seems like a wonderful person. I’m sure Brian has done many great things for Hawaii’s communities but that does not excuse any elected or appointed leader from actions of this weight and consequence. This is a felony.
Our country has gone down a road where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity. Few leaders have touched an honest approach to the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election…and the world is just suppose to be okay with it.
Teenagers and young adults are in tune with what is going on and watching to see how we make decisions and lead. We can’t blame them for not being engaged if we can’t make them believe that “right” is worth championing for.
Our children and neighbors deserve much better.
Woden on 19 May 2011 at 1:15 pm #
Why won’t this damn thing go away?
Even if there was indisputable evidence Obama was born in Kenya it would not matter.
The vast majority of Americans wouldn’t care — he won the election, that is good enough for most people.
If the Constitution got in the way — not that ANYone cares about that old thing — some court would just rule that the ‘true intent’ of the clause was that someone must be born ‘feeling American’ or some other such nonsense.
Mizza Janks on 19 May 2011 at 2:32 pm #
52% of the population that voted for him is now racist? Check out a brother’s blog http://sirlancealittle.wordpress.com
Ellen1 on 19 May 2011 at 2:34 pm #
Max Weber said: “It doesn’t matter about original intent..”
The original intent of the founders was simply a US citizen who was born in the USA. Subsequent statutes added the children of US citizens who were born abroad (like McCain), but Meese, Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, says that those born abroad to US citizens are in doubt. He says that there is no doubt whatsoever on US citizens who were born in the USA.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
RedPhillips on 19 May 2011 at 4:37 pm #
Woden and Matt, it isn’t true that nobody cares about original intent. A certain niche of constitutionalist conservatives always care about original intent and other conservatives care about it when it suits their purposes (opposing an insurance mandate for example). But it is true that most people don’t care about original intent, and I find that sad.
But what is the point in throwing up your hands? That isn’t going to help anything. The point is to get others who don’t care about original intent to care. It’s just not in me to be that defeatist.
I may be an idealist, but I’m also a realist. I have never said that an originalist study that found natural born to likely exclude dual citizens would somehow magically overturn an election. But what it would do is give originalist a righteous bully pulpit from which to rhetorically pound away with confindence instead of equivocation. It would be nice to have you fellows in the fight instead of naysaying from the sidelines those of us seeking the truth.
I’ll deal with Ellen when I have more time.
Ellen1 on 19 May 2011 at 4:57 pm #
Re: “I have never said that an originalist study that found natural born to likely exclude dual citizens would somehow magically overturn an election. ”
Answer: An originalist study would find that the original meaning of Natural Born included dual citizens. The writers of the Constitution never used the term dual citizen. And, there is evidence that most of them believed with Blackstone that a person could have only one loyalty. And Blackstone believed that that loyalty was to the country where she or he was born.
RedPhillips on 19 May 2011 at 5:51 pm #
Ellen, you have obviously made your opinion clear. Perhaps the preponderence of the evidence would support your contention. I don’t know. I have only looked at it superficially. What I said is that the idea that the Founder’s intended to exclude dual citizens is plausible. You are the one making dogmatic statements and you do yourself or your position no favors by doing so. When you use words like no and never you box yourself in because any exception makes your statement false. And I know I can find contrary statements by the Founders because I have seen them
But prudence alone should keep you from making such dogmatic pronunciations. If it was as clear as you would have us believe then people wouldn’t be arguing about it still. The fact that people are still arguing about it to this day should give you a clue that it isn’t as clear cut as you wish to pronounce from on high. (You remind me of the new convert to Calvinism who pronounces to his Arminian friends that the Bible is clearly 100% on his side and thus they should change their opinion. Well no it isn’t, because if it was people wouldn’t have been arguing about it for hundreds and hundreds of years. Respect those who have debated before you. Certainly they were not all completely clueless idiots.)
A few points. Even people who have looked into the “natural born citizen” clause deeply admit the issue is “murky” or other such terminology, because there is surprisingly little direct evidence. There was little debate at the Constitutional Convention about it. That is why both sides have to look for other contemporary sources and try to understand the common meaning at the time and extrapolate from there. That is why a lot of people end up citing Vattel, a Frenchman, instead of direct quotes from the Founders.
Also, adding to the confusion, citizen didn’t really have the same conotations then that it does now. Travel was much less extensive. Borders were less defined. Many people hardly traveled more than a little distance from their place of birth their whole lives. There were no birth certificates and no hospital births. And their wasn’t the huge apparatus of state that citizenship “entitled” you to. As one of our other posters pointed out, at the time many people were considered “subjects” of a particular crown as opposed to “citizens.”
And finally, at the time the Founders weren’t so much worried about alliens usurping the office as they were about foreign royals coming over here and assuming power based on their status in their home country. This is why it is not at all a reach to assume that the Founders would have been very concerned about divided loyalties and therefor would not want people with divided loyalties at birth coming to power.
I’ll provide some links to some contrary evidence when I have time. In the meantime I suggest your walk back your dogmatic statements a bit.
Hunter Rose on 19 May 2011 at 6:08 pm #
The deliberate lack of reason displayed by Birthers just amazes me.
If all of the evidence of Obama’s legitimacy isn’t enough for the Birthers, then they cannot be certain of the legitimacy of *any* other President.
We never saw Bush’s or Clinton’s birth certificate… where was the outrage then?
The glaring and obvious answer is that they were white. That is the ONLY difference between Obama and every other President that the birthers care about. Otherwise, there would be public outcries for ‘proof of legitimacy’ from opposing sides in the run up to every election.
It’s sad when people are so blatantly transparent and oblivious to being so.
Matt Weber on 19 May 2011 at 8:21 pm #
“The glaring and obvious answer is that they were white.”
Stupid and contemptible. No one cared to see Jesse Jackson’s BC either. I guess that destroys your grand theory.
Ellen1 on 19 May 2011 at 8:31 pm #
Re: “This is why it is not at all a reach to assume that the Founders would have been very concerned about divided loyalties and therefor would not want people with divided loyalties at birth coming to power.”
Answer: Remember strict construction? Under it, you are not allowed to assume. You are not allowed to infer anything from a “concern.” And besides, even that concern is very much in doubt.
The very grandfather clause of the US constitution indicates a lack of concern. Two-fers hold the theory that the grandfather clause was inserted so that the writers of the US Constitution could make themselves eligible to be president. It was actually inserted so that Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, who were not born in one of the American colonies, could be president.
Regardless of the intent, the actual effect of the Grandfather clause, some historical research shows, was to allow about 60,000 men who had neither been born in the 13 original colonies or had US parents to become president. Regardless of the motive, allowing those 60,000 to be eligible does not indicate concern. What would have indicted concern would have been to exclude persons born outside the 13 colonies unless they had fought in the Revolution, or something like that. But they just threw in ther grandfather clause, allowing the 60,000.
Another clue to there being little concern is the 14 year requirement. Fourteen years sounds like a lot, but when a person of 60 years old runs for president, and is allowed to have lived all of a life except for 14 years outside of the USA–well, that is about 70% of the life. The writers of the constitution were really, really worried when they allowed a person to have lived 70% (or more) of a life outside of the USA.
Birthers and two-fers have grasped at the Vattel illusion. First, no translation of Vattel into English used the words “Natural Born” until TEN years after the Constitution, so the reference to Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen cannot be to Vattel. Second, Vattel is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Third, Vattel is an example of a thinker who worried little at all about foreign influence. His book lists several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries (even those speaking other languages), and Vattel never says that doing that was a bad thing.
But, obviously, the requirements for the president being a Natural Born Citizen indicates some measure of concern about foreign influence. All that we KNOW, however, is that the meaning of a Natural Born Citizen excludes foreigners (because you have to be a citizen), and it excludes naturalized citizens (because you have to be natural born). That is all.
The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UANIMOUSLY was that not one single member in the 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives believes that the citizenship of Obama’s father has any effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.
“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
RedPhillips on 19 May 2011 at 10:00 pm #
“The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UANIMOUSLY was that not one single member in the 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives believes that the citizenship of Obama’s father has any effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.”
Ellen, you have got to be kidding me. Do you seriously think any one of those Senators or Reps actually sat down and attempted to ascertain the original intent of “natural born citizen?” I wish I could say Ron Paul did, but I don’t even believe that. No one was going to vote against confirming Obama because if they did Cultural Marxist thought slaves like Hunter Rose would call them bad names. The unanimous vote is a testimony to the fact that our elected reps are sheep. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not the result of careful study of original intent.
“Remember strict construction? Under it, you are not allowed to assume. You are not allowed to infer anything from a “concern.” And besides, even that concern is very much in doubt.”
I didn’t say I am a strict constructionist (although I generally am). I believe in original intent. There is a difference. Good constitutional interpretation like good Biblical interpretation is not wooden literalism. It attempts to ascertain the intent of the authors in the former case and the Author in the latter.
“All that we KNOW, however, is that the meaning of a Natural Born Citizen excludes foreigners (because you have to be a citizen), and it excludes naturalized citizens (because you have to be natural born).”
I actually agree with this. So whether or not it was also INTENDED to exclude people born with dual loyalty is going to be based on careful analysis and the preponderence of evidence. I have already conceded that an originalist analysis is unlikely to arrive at a definitive answer. But likewise, your dogmatism is unwarranted.
Ellen1 on 20 May 2011 at 2:12 pm #
Re: “Do you seriously think any one of those Senators or Reps actually sat down and attempted to ascertain the original intent of “natural born citizen?”
Answer: YES. In 535 members of the House and Senate, most by far lawyers, some of whom sit on judiciary committees, I expect that some considered the original intent of the writers of the US Constitution. One way that they could do that was to search the writings of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, etc. (which are in electronic form online), and when they did that, they could see easily that none of the writers of the Constitution or other leading Americas of the day ever used the term Natural Born to refer to the parents, only to the PLACE of birth.
That is the original intent. Combine that with strict construction, meaning if the document doesn’t say “two citizen parents” it doesn’t mean “two citizen parents” and you have the reason that the vote at the US Congress was unanimous. Not one member believed that Obama was born outside of the USA, and not one member believed that the citizenship of Obama’s father or dual nationality at the time of his birth had any effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.
Further to dual nationality. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual citizen of the USA and France at the time that he was president? He had been made a full voting citizen of France, with the right to run for office and to serve as a minister of the French government, by the French Assembly.
Which brings up another point about dual nationality. Dual nationality does not necessarily make you loyal to one or the other countries, it just says that the two governments expect you to be loyal based on a law that they passed. So, Mexico could pass a law that said that all children born in Texas, say, were at the moment of their birth also citizens of Mexico.
That would not make them loyal to Mexico, nor would it deprive the children born in Texas of Natural Born Citizenship. We would be stupid to allow that to happen today, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution were stupid when they wrote.
This, I think, is pretty definitive.
Bruce on 21 May 2011 at 8:28 pm #
I don’t care where Obummer was born, I just want him out of office as soon as possible for the good of our country !
Ellen1 on 22 May 2011 at 4:16 pm #
Replying to Bruce:
You have the right to support his opponent in the next presidential election. Your side may win that election, but it will not be because of the stupid lie that Obama was born outside of the USA or the equally stupid Constitutional interpretation that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen requires two US citizen parents.
natural law on 22 May 2011 at 11:10 pm #
WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT NOT TAKE THIS “ISSUE” AND BRING IT TO ALLOW US THE EXPLANATION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” ARE “ANCHOR BABIES” CONSIDERED “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS”??? WHAT DOES JURISDICTION MEAN??? I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY WROTE THAT CLAUSE????WHERE ARE OUR “CONSTITUTIONALISTS??? IT IS ALWAYS IN THE “TRANSLATION” AND MEANING OF ORIGINAL INTENT…AND WE WERE NOT THERE//// HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE SURVIVAL OF THIS GREAT NATION..~!!!!!!! GOD BLESS OUR LEADERS..
Ellen1 on 23 May 2011 at 6:41 pm #
Re: “I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY WROTE THAT CLAUSE????WHERE ARE OUR “CONSTITUTIONALISTS??”
Answer: What they meant was the use of Natural Born that they had been using all their lives. They were mainly lawyers and justices, and the meaning of Natural Born at the the time that they wrote was citizenship due to the place of birth. Only the PLACE, not the parents. The Swiss, Germans, French and Italians believed that the parents of a person determined citizenship. British and Americans believed in jus soli, the law of soil, of place.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Writers Wanted on 28 May 2011 at 7:36 am #
We need authors desperately. After looking over this article, We have got to get you on our staff. We pay out $35 TO $50 hourly. Our prime people are pulling in over $91K per year, writing part-time.
Please stop by and see what we have to offer. http://write.ncsall.org
Mark Gillar on 30 May 2011 at 6:28 am #
Jerome Corsi discusses his latest New York Times Best-Seller.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar/2011/05/28/jerome-corsi–wheres-the-birth-certificate
Ellen1 on 04 Jun 2011 at 8:08 am #
Re Corsi. I’ll bet that he did not discuss this:
First, it should be obvious that a child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.
Second, there were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.
So Obama’s parents would have had to have:
(1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya);
(2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother’s US passport or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed;
(3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one);
(4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital;
(5) got three Republican officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama’s files verified that he was born in Hawaii.
ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA.
RedPhillips on 04 Jun 2011 at 5:17 pm #
Ellen, apparently you are well versed in all facets of Obama apology, both the natural born issue and the “birther” issue per se. Are you being tasked with answering these charges? Seems a lot of Obama apologists are popping up on birther posts all over the internet.
First of all, I never said Obama was born in Kenya, but Corsi has chosen to take that position, which I think is unfortunate because it forces the debate toward the born in Kenya extreme, instead of the more generic idea that he might be hiding something in all the records he refuses to release.
But one thing I am pretty sure of is that Corsi has addressed your objections. I haven’t read the book yet, but Corsi is VERY thorough.
As far as Obama’s passport history, we don’t know about his passport history because HE HAS REFUSED TO RELEASE IT. Hmmm…? Now whether Obama’s passport history would contain stuff from when he was an infant, I don’t know. But it would address his travel to Pakistan. Did he travel to Pakistan on a US passport? We don’t know. Nobody knows except Obama (and maybe some others) because he has REFUSED TO RELEASE HIS PASSPORT RECORDS. Now Ellen, you seem like an honest person. Your arguments have been straightforward. Could we not agree, as reasonable people, that 1.) Obama SHOULD release his passport records and 2.) if he continues to refuse the press should vigorously pursue why not?
Now assuming (which I don’t necessarily) that Obama was born somewhere besides HI and his grandparents went and did one of the “attested to” forms of birth certificates, it doesn’t really add a barrier to say they would have had to have lied because that they lied is inherent in the allegation. So I’m not sure I get your point there.
Honest question and I hope you will do me the favor of answering it honestly? Do you think Anthony Weiner actually sent the now infamous tweet? Do you accept at face value his explanation that he was hacked? Notice that when Weiner gave a fishy answer the press did not accept it at face value and continued to ask followup questions? “If you were hacked, why haven’t you notified the police?”
So why aren’t the press asking basic followup questions of Obama?
Ellen1 on 07 Jun 2011 at 4:09 pm #
Re: ” But one thing I am pretty sure of is that Corsi has addressed your objections. I haven’t read the book yet, but Corsi is VERY thorough.”
There is NOT a single word about the need for a US visa on a foreign passport or the need to add Obama to his mother’s US passport while in Kenya (or for that matter, any other country). Corsi does not mention it at all. And it is not the visa or the US passport alone that has not been found. No one has found any applications in Kenya (or in any other country) for an Obama visa or the addition of him to his mother’s passport.
Corsi briefly covers the birth notices in the newspapers. He says that they were generated by the government of Hawaii. BUT then he insists that the government of Hawaii could have been fooled by Obsam’s relatives–that cannot be true because there is evidence that whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital Hawaii insisted on signed witness statements to prove it.
Re Pakistan: That turns out to be one of simpler birther LIES. Obama and any US citizen could have gone to Pakistan in 1981 using a US passport because Pakistan was not on any US “no travel list,” nor did Pakistan keep US tourists from visiting. It was very anxious to get tourist dollars, so eager that Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue in New York.
Re the “different kinds of birth certificates.” Sure, but only the regular, ordinary long-form birth certificate could be issued immediately. All the others took a delay of about a month, as would a claim of a birth outside of a hospital. But we know that there was no delay because the newspaper notices appeared ten days after the birth (which was normal for a birth on a Friday.)
Re: Passport history. NO President has ever shown details of his passport. Obama showed the overall passport, but not the places where he went. There is NO law that requires this. However, IF a Republican candidate shows her or his passport, then Obama is likely to do so too.
RedPhillips on 07 Jun 2011 at 6:02 pm #
First of all, I never said he was born in Kenya so your argument is with Corsi. That there would be documentation for how he got back here is one of the problems with the Kenya theory. Another problem is that his mother’s marriage to BO Senior was almost certainly a sham (to provide legitimacy to BO II, to help BO Senior stay in the country longer, both?), so why would she have traveled to Kenya alone? Surely you agree that the marriage was a sham. The plain facts of timeline, etc. indicate this. No conspiracy involved at all with interpreting those plain facts. So at the least, BO fibbed his narrative, both in his “memoir” (which he almost certainly didn’t write) and in his Convention speech. Do you not concede this? (Also, do you concede that Obama didn’t write his memoir?)
Regarding the Pakistan travel ban, that there was an absolute travel ban was only asserted intially by some people who were uninformed. People who have kept up with this debate understand there was not an absolute travel ban. Us in the “he may be hiding something” school are not responsible for what every other uninformed birther says. The issue is that he won’t release his passport records. This causes normally curious people (why are you deliberately incurious?) to speculate why. Since they don’t know, they speculate. The wise and cautious ones don’t dogmatically assert things. They simply speculate. “Hmmm… I wonder if BO went to Pakistan on his US passport?” This is something some of us like to refer to as human nature. Something the Obama apologist are deliberately supressing. Obama and his team did not seem to intend to let it be known he had traveled to Pakistan. Then when someone (not part of the team as I recall) let the cat out of the bag, they acknowledged but tried to downplay it.
The newspaper birth notices were automatically generated based on what the Hawaii Dept of Health (or whatever the name) reported. The speculation would be that the grandparents attested to an out of hospital birth. Again I don’t get your objection about witness statements. That is the allegation, that the grandparents lied and said they witnessed it. Again, no wise and cautious person should dogmatically assert this is what happened. It is speculation that arose due to Obama’s refusal to release his long form. As above, when someone refuses to let you see something, the naturally curious mind wonders why? I do not know about the timeframe issue you mention so I can’t comment on it. If true, then it would make that particular speculation about why he was refusing to release his long form less likely. (Do you have a source for the timeframe issue?)
Compare the way the press handled the Weiner situation? Weiner said he was hacked. This sounded fishy? They asked followups? “If you were hacked, why haven’t you called the police?” His answer to that was even less credible and aroused more suspicion. See how this works? You keep asking questions until you get a satisfactory answer. And if you fail to get a satisfactory answer you investigate. (Novel concept, I know.)
So the answer to “Why does Obama have a CT SSN?” is not “You silly birther … blah, blah … you must be a racist … blah, blah … tin-foil hat … blah, blah … conspiracy theory … blah, racist, blah!” It is, “I don’t know why Obama has a CT SSN. I’ll look into it for you and get back with you.” (I dare you to disagree with this.) The first answer arouses suspicion in normal people, just as “I want to move on from this distraction” as Weiner’s answer aroused suspicion in normal people.
It would be nice if you would address your replies to what I am actually saying, instead of attacking generic birther arguments that I’m not making.
Do you agree the marriage was a sham and thus Obama fibbed his narrative?
Do you think Obama wrote his memoir?
Do you think the second reply to the SSN question is more appropriate than the first?
Ellen1 on 09 Jun 2011 at 4:13 pm #
Re: “marriage was a sham.”
So? If it were, that would make Obama just as illegitimate as Alexander Hamilton.
However, divorce records are good proof that a legal marriage took place. And a child of a legal marriage is usually considered legitimate, even if the marriage was a bigamous act.
The answer to why Obama had a Connecticut SS number has to do with these two zip codes. The one for the part of Honolulu where Obama lived was 96814. The one for Darien, CT was 06814. Notice that all the digits are the same except for the first one? Well, the SS number was generated by the zip code. And, if you misread the 9 for a 0 or type 0 when you should have entered 9, you get a Connecticut SS number and not a Hawaii SS number.
Turns out that there are MILLIONS of similar errors in the SS files.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_S…
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-mi…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-5…
Which is why no one in congress is making much of an issue of this.
I do not recall ever saying “you silly birther.”
Weiner was and is a louse. But the fact that he is a louse does not make all politicians lice.
Getting back to the Hawaii birth notices. We are in total agreement that they were generated by the DOH when it issued a birth certificate. YOU say, based on no evidence whatsoever, that the relatives could have lied about the place of birth and gotten away with it.
I say that the relatives could NOT have lied and gotten away with it because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, the Hawaii government insisted on a witness statement. We know from the long-form birth certificate (which you may claim is forged, but it isn’t) and from the former and present governors of Hawaii and from this witness who recalls being told of the birth at Kapiolani (she was wrong about the doctor who delivered, but that is understandable, she was told by the chief of the obstetrics department http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm) that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital.
But, say that they all are wrong. Say that the relatives claimed that Obama was born at home and that they were lying. You say that they could have gotten away with the lie. I say that there is evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements when there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital. So, they couldn’t have gotten away with it. So, the notices in the newspapers confirm the BC and the confirmations by the THREE Republican officials and the witness cited above that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The absence of a travel document for Obama in 1961 also applies to every other country besides Kenya. Sure, he could have been smuggled across the Canadian or Mexican borders and then flown to Hawaii–but that seems highly improbable.
More importantly, there is the sheer improbability of a birth outside of Hawaii in 1961. Travel was rare and expensive, and virtually never done late in pregnancy. IF you did travel, you boasted about it. Yet we are to believe that Obama’s mother traveled overseas late in pregnancy and then successfully smuggled the child back to the USA, lied about the place of birth and got away with it.
Re: Obama’s passport records. Why should he release them? Has any other president released his passport records? Is there anything other than speculation that he used a foreign passport? Is there a law that says that presidential candidates should release their passport records? If such a law were proposed, would it get three votes in Congress?
However, if in the next election, the Republican candidate shows her or his passport records, Obama is likely to do so too.
mandeville on 22 Jun 2011 at 2:45 am #
The left likes to play the race card, but Obama haters can’t stand his ideology, not his race.
His ideology is based on theft, wherever it is applied. It really doesn’t matter who’s in office, as far as democrats are concerned, or where they were born. The problem is that they seek the tyranny of the majority as it pertains to the rights to property. Hillary, if elected, wouldn’t have been much different. She’s a socialist/Marxist too.