Here are my comments. Long post ahead.
In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizen is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether the child of a non-citizen parent is a natural born citizen.
False. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1401, "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States" before Nov. 14, 1986 is a natural-born citizen only if the citizen parent "was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"
Ann Dunham was too young to have automatically passed along her citizen to her son, thus Obama is not a natural-born citizen.
News commentators and Internet bloggers invented the word "birther" as a term of derision and contempt towards people who question Barack Obama's presidential eligibility
Partially true. The first person to be called a "Birther" was Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania lawyer who was the first person to file a lawsuit charging that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen, and therefore, was ineligible to be President, months before anyone else did (August 2008). The term, "Birther" is a direct derivative of the word, "Truther," a term used to describe members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. After the attacks of September 11, a number of individuals and citizens groups believed that there was a "cover-up" by the Bush Administration. Consequently, they conducted their own investigations of the attacks and their aftermath. These diverse groups - from those advocating on behalf of family members through to conspiracy theorists - were dubbed the "9/11 truth movement."
The label, "Truther" was then given to anyone harbouring a conspiracy theory about the 9/11 attacks. There were literally hundreds of conspiracy variants, all involving the Bush Administration and various other intelligence agencies (like the NSA, CIA and Israel's Mossad), and Jewish groups ("Jewish Lobby") and countries (Israel, primarily).
Although Phil Berg was not allied with the 9/11 Truth Movement, and did not ascribe to conspiracy theories, he was, nevertheless seen as the head Truther for being the first and only person to bring a lawsuit against the Bush Administration for "Having prior knowledge and warnings of 9/11 and failing to warn or take steps to prevent it" (Mariani Vs Bush, filed November 2003 on behalf of a widow whose husband died on Flight 175).
Given his high profile in this court case and being seen as the quintessential "Truther," it was inly a matter of time that someone would coin the term, "Birther," as a derisive and derogatory label and pin it on Phil Berg. As more and more people began to notice that Obama was refusing to release his original birth certificate, along with claims that he posted a copy online, the defenders and apologists that comprise the liberal Left, subsequently called everyone a Birther if they expressed any doubts, whatsover, about Obama's eligibility or place of birth. The fact that Obama has never released anything of substance to support his identity and biography, seems to be lost among the liberal Left as they toss that Birther label around. As proof of their insanity, the liberal Left just recently tried to link the Holocaust Museum shooter, James Von Brunn, to the "Borther movement" and the Free Republic because he, too, questioned OBama's eligibility: probably the only lucid thought the manman ever had.
In this paper, "birther" does not refer to any particular group or organization. Rather, it refers respectfully to people who think Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as U.S. President.
Birthers believe Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, for that reason alone, he is not eligible to serve as President.
Partially true. A lot of Birthers also believe that Obama was not born in the United States and not a citizen by birth. Moreover, Birthers also believe that Obama is not fit to serve as President and that he ascended to the Presidency by massive criminal fraud (Not to mention how he has thoroughly disgraced the Office of the President).
There is some question as to whether President Obama meets the first requirement [born on US Soil]. Unsubstantiated rumors suggest he might have been born in Kenya.
Intentionally misleading. There is no question that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. On October 1, 2008, two top Hawaiian officials, the Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino and the State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, stated to the media that "they had seen and verified Obama's original birth certificate on record," and without question, they would have also stated that Obama was born in Hawaii if his birth certificate confirmed it!
Because they gave no indication as to what they had on record -- whether it was an original Hawaiian Certificate of Birth, a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, another US birth certificate, or a certificate from a foreign country -- Obama's birtj place is still open to speculation, and the evidence that he was born in Kenya is as valid as is the evidence of his birth in Hawaii. Therefore, it is intentionally misleading to characterize a valid alternative to Obama's birthplace as an "unsubstantiated rumor."
In effect, the author is dismissing, out-of-hand, the Affidavits of two well-respected people in Kenya, Reverend Kweli Shuhubia and Bishop Ron McRae, as well as the statements made on live radio by the Kenyan Ambassador as "unsubstantiated rumors [that] suggest he might have been born in Kenya. Tounchen also fails to cite the statements of Obama's paternal Grandmother who said that she was present at Obama's birth in Mombasa, Kenya!
On November 6, 2008, only two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike In The Morning” called the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C., and spoke with the Kenyan Ambassador, His Excellency, Peter Ogego. When asked id there were any celebrations going on in Kenya in response to Obama's election as POTUS, Ambassador Ogego stated that Obama's birthplace in Kenya was already "a well-known attraction."
On the other side of this birthplace issue, there is not a single shred of documentary evidence, nor any person in existence, that attests to the birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. NO hospital records. NO eyewitnesses. NO family members. NO friends. NO members of the Nordyke family into which twin daughters were allegedly born at the same time, and in the same hospital as Obama. NOT a single person who remembers seeing Obama's parents in Hawaii around the time his mother gave birth.
In short, there is more evidentiary documentation that Obama was born in Kenya than there is Obama geing born in Hawaii.
To summarize, we know for sure that persons born in the U.S., of parents who are U.S. citizens, are definitely, without doubt, natural born citizens. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided whether natural born citizen also includes U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents.
Intentionally misleading. While it is true that the Supreme Court has never "decided whether natural born citizen also includes U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents," it is patently clear what was the intent of the Founding Fathers:At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.
The main controversy boils down to this one question: If Barack Obama Jr. was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama Jr. meet the Constitutional "natural born citizen" requirement for presidency?
Omissions of fact. The main controversy does not boil down to one, single question, which is also stated incorrectly. The author is making a gross oversimplification of the eligibility issue by citing one possible scenario that would render Obama ineligible under the Constitution, namely dual citizen. The intent of the usage of "natural born," was clearly aimed at avoiding loyalties to a foreign political power (as espoused by Vattel). Regardless of where Obama was born, he clearly had British citizen at birth. If Obama was not born on US soil, then he would not even be a US citizen at birth. Either Obama had British citizen at birth, or had British citizen at birth in addition to US citizen at birth if he was born in Hawaii. The meaning of "natural born citizen," as it applies solely to the requirements of President and Vice President, is that of a child born on US soil to two US citizens.There is no question that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen by virtue of his British citizen. Although the same definition of natural-born citizen is technically applicable to John McCain, in light of the Canal Zone not being "US soil," there is absolutely no question as to McCain's loyalties or to the loyalties of both of his parents who were, at the time of his birth, US citizens station abroad in service to this country.
It is also worth noting, how incredibily disingenous is the liberal Left in the Democratic Party and in the mainstream media, to have thoroughly disgraced and denigrated a decorated war hero, John McCain, for six (6) long months, for the same issue of eligibility (albeit a specious application) that Obama has deliberately ignored for more than 20 months, using character assasinations, deceit, fraud, and abuse of the legal system paid for with campaign contributions. While John McCain presented a copy of his original birth certificate to the Senate along with 2,400 pages of medical records, Barack Obama presented no paper documentation of any sort regarding his place of birth, along with a note from his doctor who had not seen him in 18 years.
To put it mildly, the "main controversy" is that we have a complete unknown in the White House who has proven himself to be secretive and dishonest, by intentionally hiding every single bit of information that would verify who he is, where he was born, and who were his real, biological parents. The one thing to which all of the birthers agree is that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen. A natual-born citizen would not commit felony document fraud to prove that he was a natural-born citizen.
Thus the Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that, in order for the presidential natural born citizen provision to be effective, the term "natural born citizen" had to mean "U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents". Otherwise, the provision would not work in all cases. It would occasionally allow, into the Office of President, individuals who were foreign citizens at birth or subject to foreign legal jurisdiction at birth -- the very kind of situation that the Founding Fathers had undoubtedly hoped to prevent, given their abhorrence of foreign influence in general.
Exactly correct! Now, Tounchen could have saved us all a lot of grief if he mentioned this right off the bat. Why lead the reader down the wrong path with all these unnnecssary diversions when he could have easily kept them on target?
Currently, there is no Federal law that explicitly defines "natural born citizen" or explicitly conveys "natural born citizen" to anyone.
Intentionally misleading. Just when Tounchen gets the reader back on point, he diverts attention away from the previous section by delving into a very long and irrelevant section devoted to minutae and "splitting hairs." The readers are not so stupid as to need any "Yes, but," qualifications of laws that have already been codified, nor of pertinent facts they they know to be true. Such a practice is demeaning and undercuts whatever credibility the author hopes to establish with his primer.
Birthers respond in this way... If we want to be a nation that is ruled by law and the Constitution, we cannot just ignore a Constitutional requirement, merely because it is inconvenient or we think it doesn't matter...Many of our rights -- free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, trial by jury, and so on -- come from the Constitution.
Condescending and patronizing. I would sincerely hope, as I do for every other American, that we all believe "these truths are self-evident," and "that we are a nation of laws," and that we do not need a 3rd Grade lesson in Civics to tell us that. On the other hand, the liberal Left would flunk every Civics test they take, and this part of the author's primer should be dropped by air over Blue States so that the Democratic masses "get the memo."
So far, every lawsuit challenging Obama's presidential eligibility has been dismissed
Almost true. There are still cases not pending a hearing and other cases on appeal. The "Fat Lady" has not sung yet.
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizen status of children of British subjects was "governed" (that's Obama's word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama's citizen status, at birth, was "governed" by British law, in addition to U.S. law. If Obama's citizen status at birth was "governed" by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizen?
Exactly correct. Again, it would have been nice to present this first without the unnecssary diversions. The length of this document could have been streamlined.
What's the "beef" with President Obama's birth certificate? President Obama has published, on the internet, a digital photograph of a computer-generated short-form Certification of Life Birth.
Patently false.There is no real Certification of Live Birth for Obama dated June 6, 2007. It does not exist anywhere and what was posted online is a forgery.
The President has not published a copy of his original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate containing the names and signatures of people who actually witnessed his birth...In Hawaii, the contents of an original long-form birth certificate are private and confidential information, protected by State law. The Aloha State will not release a copy of an original birth certificate without permission. So far, President Obama has not given his permission for the release of his original long-form birth certificate.
True, but. Tthe entire birth record is protected so as to include short-form certifications and long-form certificates. There is a document not mentioned anywhere in this primer, called a "Letter of Verification." It contains all of the information shown on the short-form Certification but it is not certified by the State Registrar (no embossed Seal,etc.). An organization could have obtained this Letter of Verification without the prior approval of Obama if it had a direct and tangible need for it, such as using it to establish if a person meets an organization's progracriteria for participation in a special program, or applying for a job or a loan. Conversely, state programs, such as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, do require the Certificate of Birth, and will not accept the short-form Certification of Live Birth. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the long-form Certificate of Birth cannot be obtained.
Reality. Obama has never released a real birth document, nor will he ever release one.
Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth confirms two facts: The State of Hawaii has, in its files, the President's original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate; and The President's original 1961 birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.
Both false. No one knows exactly what Hawaii has in its "files," nor do we know if they have a paper document. Hawaii's Health Director made a point of saying that they had Obama's certificate on record, and in every instance where Hawaii uses the phrase, on record, they are referencing only a computer record.
Whatever they have, it absolutely does not say that he was born in Hawaii.
Birthers do not dispute either of these two facts.
False. We just disputed both.
Birthers merely want to know the extent, if any, to which the information on Barack Obama's original 1961 long-form birth certificate came from or was verified by someone other than an immediate family member.
Non sequitur. This statement does not make any sense. Birthers don't "merely" do anything, for starters. The reason why we want to see the original, long-form birth certificate is because (a) Obama posted a forgery online, (b) the information in that forgery is false, and (c) the long-form will confirm where he was born, when he was born, and to whom he was born. Nothing "merely" about these facts.
Dr. Fukino confirmed that Barack Obama's original 1961 long-form Hawaiian birth certificate exists, and the Hawaii State Department of Health has possession of it.
False. Again, statements like this basically kill the credibility of the entire document.
But she did not confirm or verify any information contained in the birth certificate itself.
Correct. Why didn't the author pay attention to this when he made the erroneous statement that the original birth certificate confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Under Hawaii State law, the contents of a birth certificate are private and confidential. Consequently, Dr. Fukino could not legally disclose or confirm any information contained in Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Never proven. The reason why this was never proven is because no one listened to me, going back to Jly of last year, when I told them to request a paper copy of Obama's Certification of Live Birth or at least, the Letter of Verification. The Letter of Verificaton could have easily been obtained by an organization with a cogent reason for it, or because of the public's interest in it, or because the information on it was now a part of the public record. No one ever attempted to do that before Hawaii put a lock on his records. If they had gotten the Letter of Verification, then we would have known that the information on the online COLB did not match what was on the Letter.
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
Nonetheless, there is little doubt that President Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.
Utterly false and misleading. There is no excuse for making this error unless you make a habit of trusting whatever the Associated Press says. This statement makes the entire document about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Under the laws that were in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone born outside of Hawaii.
Patently False. Obama's mother or grandmother was absolutely able to obtained a Hawaiian Birth Certificate for Obama. From the Vital Statistics web page:
"Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."
Sorry, but nothing bugs me more than to see patently false statements being made about what is a verifiable fact!
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate"...
Irrelevant. almost as bad as a falsehood.
Hawaiian Statute 338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, allowed Hawaiian birth certificates to be issued to foreign-born children of Hawaii-resident parents. But Statute 338-17.8 was not enacted until 1982, well after Barack Obama was born.
Irrelevant and misleading. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972...If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth.
In 1961, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a birth certificate to Barack Obama unless the State believed he was born in Hawaii. Barack Obama's original 1961 typewritten birth certificate undoubtedly says he was born in Hawaii.
Still patently false. This guy keeps babbling out baloney as if nobody is the wiser. Take a gander at this Certificate of LOive Birth from 1963. I draw your attention to Box 7c Count and State or Foreign Country
:
Now, are you going to trust your eyes, or what Touchen says?
But questions still remain. When Barack Obama was born, was his birth attended by a doctor or midwife? If not, who testified regarding his birth? His mother? His grandmother? Were any of these people interviewed?
Already answered. Obama's paternal grandmother was a witness to his birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate's probative value?
Irrrelevant. Now, you can read off the statement by Fukino.
Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama's birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier?
Who cares?
Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii cannot be regarded as "verified" until these questions are answered.Wrong again. This is getting old, fast. How many times in one docment can a person screw up a simple fact?
Doesn't the mere existence of Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii? Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate, by its mere existence, shows that the State of Hawaii believed he was born in Hawaii.
Repeat after me. Obama was not born in Hawaii. Obama was not born in Hawaii. Obama was not born in Hawaii. Obama was not born in Hawaii. Obama was not born in Hawaii.
His birth certificate would prove that he was born in Hawaii only if his birth in Hawaii was witnessed and confirmed by someone other than an immediate family member.
Close, but no cigar. "If," and I do mean, "IF" there actuallty is a long-form, Certificate of Birth from the state of Hawaii, and Box 7c: says "Honolulu, Hawaii," and IF the birth happened in a hospital, and IF the rest of the form were filled out, THEN, Obama was born in Hawaii. But, let me state for the last time:Obama was not born in Hawaii
But consider this hypothetical scenario...Given the mother's testimony...The birth certificate would show no independent corroboration of the baby's birth in Hawaii. The Hawaii State Department of Health officials would have believed that the baby was born in Hawaii because the mother had said so and they had no compelling reason to believe otherwise. But the birthplace indicated on the birth certificate would be based solely on the mother's unsubstantiated testimony.
Nice story, but. If that were the case, then Obama would have released his Certificate of Birth. If his Grandmother was acting as the midwife, then the legend of Barack Hussein Obama would be even more heartwarming than it is already (barf).
Obama was not born in Hawaii. But I'll give you even odds that he was born in Kenya.What if Stanley Ann and her recently-born baby had arrived, on an overseas flight, at Honolulu International Airport, on Sunday, August 6, 1961? In the absence of an original birth certificate, such theoretical possibilities, however implausible and far fetched, cannot be entirely ruled out.
If pigs could fly. Memo to author: Obama did not have to be a recently-born baby to get a Certificate of Live Birth. He could have been 11 months old. So, this story is no more "improbable" than the virgin birth story above.
Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizen -- birth within the United States.
Correct, but late. Did you ever get the feeling that you were just set up for this?
Birthers are divided over this issue. Some believe President Obama was born overseas. Others believe that, when the President's birth certificate is released, it will show conclusively that he was born in Hawaii.Half-wrong. BIRTHERS are divided among the following: When Obama was born he was a: (a) British citizen, (b) British citizen and US citizen, (c) British citizen, US citizen, and Indonesian citizen, (d) alien from Mars, or (e) Birthers really don't care if he was born.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.
No, they won't. SCOTUS will never settle the question of Obama's presidential eligibility as it is now moot. The only way he will be removed is by impeachment, and it will be up to Congress to determine Presidential eligibility in future elections.
The DC District Court has the authority to investigate the eligibility of a sitting President. The DC District Court received this authority from Congress when Congress passed the Federal Quo Warranto Statute in 1901 and revised it, in 1963, to its present form.
Yes, but it's judicial suicide. I can't imagine anyone in Washington with the stones to follow through on one
The bottom line for me is that Obama will be impeached before his first term is finished. The crimes are continuing to mount, and he'sgetting ripped on the issues. when his popularity falls below 50%, THEN, duck and cover.
