Obama birth certificate issue not going away

In a quest that is seen as wacky, way out there and as bitter partisan politics by some,the issue of Obama not showing his birth certificate to prove he is a naturalized American citizen continues. Is this really just some conspiracy theory along the lines of 9/11 truthers and alien cover ups? At first glance it seems like it. But surprisingly many American’s seem to actually believe there is some possibility of truth in this claim that Obama is not a citizen. WND continues to run stories on it but most recently a congressman’s town hall meeting became overwhelmed with the issue.

Many people will immediately jump up and say “Obama produced a birth certificate, what more do you want?” Apparently Obama provided a certificate of live birth (COLB) which is not the same as a long form birth certificate. The long form birth certificate should provide evidence that can be corroborated. The COLB provided on factcheck.org does not show a hospital, doctor’s name or anything else that can be checked, just a time and city. This COLB can also be obtained by non citizens.

Obama could easily release his long form birth certificate but hasn’t. Just to stop people from talking about it and to show that he has the most transparent administration, you think he would.

Many liberals, moderates and even some conservatives will probably read this and just say “get over it already.” There is a time to let things go and personally I already have. Not because I don’t think it’s important but because I think Obama will never release this information and even if it is true that he is not a natural citizen, that nothing will change. But should people just get over this? If it is true, it is the biggest scam in history. People never got over Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq, should everyone just forget about this issue?

The argument could easily be made that if Obama does not qualify to be president than all of the bills he signed and executive orders he issued would have to be undone. This is very important but would cause huge upheaval. I don’t know if the American people would be able to handle this kind of event and the ramifications of the loss in trust of the government. It doesn’t mean the truth shouldn’t be fully investigated though but I sincerely doubt it ever will be

Your speculations are not plausible given the facts, plausible being the key word.

There wasn't much on how they met or what the attraction was, but he announced their plans to wed.

The Dunhams weren't happy. Stanley Ann's prospective father-in-law was furious. He wrote the Dunhams "this long, nasty letter saying that he didn't approve of the marriage," Obama recounted his mother telling him in "Dreams." "He didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman."

The reporter provides no support for the statement that "the Dunhams weren't happy." There IS support for the disapproval by Obama Sr.'s father, as I mentioned. Perhaps the reporter meant the Dunhams weren't happy to receive such an insulting letter. Maybe the reporter simply assumed that because the Dunhams were white and this was 1961, they weren't happy. But he doesn't provide any support for this statement. And maybe they weren't in fact happy, but we don't know that.

Remember, Ann was their only child and Barry was their only grandchild. The idea that Ann and her parents broke off their relationship over the marriage is not supported by any evidence. To the contrary, I think it very likely that her parents were in fact paying her bills in Seattle, since she had no other apparent source of support.

I have not contended that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Reasonable speculation would suggest he was born in Hawaii, given the facts that his parents were UH students in 1960-1961, that her parents lived in Honolulu and I believe the newspaper birth announcements are genuine. The birth announcements gave the address of a UH professor in the Hawaii Kai area, which I think is probably where Obama, Sr. was living during the summer before classes started back up. I have serious doubts as to whether Obama Sr. and Ann ever set up house together; perhaps they did for a brief period immediately after the marriage.

However, the notion that Obama Jr. was born in Hawaii is only speculation, however reasonable, because he refuses to provide the evidence in any legal proceeding. There are less likely possibilities that we cannot exclude, such as being born in Washington or over the border in Canada or at sea. Or even Kenya, as unlikely as that appears to me. We know the existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate does not preclude the possibility of birth elsewhere, at least without examining the information on the face of the long-form birth certificate, given the peculiarities of Hawaii law and procedures of birth certificates at that time. And we have the strange appearance of Ann and the newborn infant Barry showing up in Seattle apparently in late August 1961 or thereabouts.

Nevertheless, even though the facts suggest it is likely he was born in Hawaii, I find it offensive that a candidate for the highest office in our republic feels that he does not have to provide any evidence of his constitutional eligibility beyond his own signature on a piece of paper. Posting an image of a claimed document on a friendly website is not sufficient.

We deserve more from our highest public servant. When John McCain was challenged in a legal proceeding on a similar issue, he simply submitted his birth certificate as evidence into court. That is the type of openness we expect from someone who wants to be the most powerful person in our land.

As I said, an objective assessment of the facts suggests he was likely born in Hawaii. But the fact that he is defending so many lawsuits in so many different jurisdictions asserting various legal theories using procedural defenses is itself a fact that should be taken into account, and that tends to make the less likely theories of his birth more likely.

And I can tell you, anyone who thinks defending all these suits against Obama and the DNC, even on procedural grounds, in these different jurisdictions is not expensive is not a lawyer and is not familiar with law firms or civil litigation. I have little doubt that there is plenty of money in the compliance fund portion of Obama's election fund to cover these costs, but that still removes resources the Rats could use down the road toward other campaigns or toward his own reelection campaign.

Contrary to the misinformation repeated by so many, Chief Justice John Marshall explicitly repeated the definition accepted by the USSC in his response in THE VENUS page 12 U.S. 289 “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

A case dealing with naturalized citizens, not natural-born. Natural-born citizenship is not defined anywhere in any of the majority opinions.

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens (that is one or the other, for those in Rio Linda), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Note the "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." So they didn't rule on what constituted natural-born citizenship. And since it was an election law case, that is not surprising.

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Except that in the Elg case the nationality of the mother is never identified. The father was a naturalized citizen, the mother may not have been. And I'll point out that Elg is referred to as 'native-born' and 'natural born' at different times in the same decision. Are you saying the two are synonymous?

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment...

But, unfortunately, not Justice John Bingham writing for the majority. His opinion on what the Constitution means is no more binding than your's or mine.

the accepted definition of “natural born citizen” that took it a step further than “native born” was that both parents be US citizens.

I'd like to see Barry out of office this minute and anything that accomplishes that is fine with me.

But I like speculating on things so let's just entertain this question to see where the tangent leads. Nothing personal so don't get offended. It's just for discussion.

Hypothetical: a woman- US citizen- gives birth to a baby in a hospital in the USA. They go to fill out the birth certificate for the baby. They ask her 'who was the father?'. Now, in my hypothetical, Jane Doe was a real slut and, LOL, it turns out she had been drunk and did the football team- one of whom was a foreigner. It could be one of like 22 guys and there is a small chance the father could be a foreigner.

What nationality does the baby have? Would the baby be eligible to run for President of the USA? Would we require the baby get a DNA test to prove he/she wasn't the offspring of the foreigner? If the foreigner was the father but the baby never met him would the baby have 'loyalties' to the father's country?

There's a whole can of worms you can get into here and I think these questions are interesting and in a way these questions are relevent to the discussion here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.