Skip to comments.Ann Coulter Says Obama's Birth Certificate "Not an Issue"; Calls Proponents "Cranks" - Video 7/25/09
Posted on 07/26/2009 11:35:29 AM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Here is video of Ann Coulter on with Geraldo Rivera last night saying that President Obama's Birth Certificate is "not an issue," and that it is just being pushed by a "few cranks" out there. Coulter blamed the Mainstream Media's lack of in-depth reporting on Obama for the rise of those who believe there has been a conspiracy to keep the truth from the American people on the issue of Obama's birth.
Geraldo criticized Lou Dobbs as being a "dope" for talking about the issue, and for his opposition to illegal immigration. Coulter disagreed with Geraldo about Lou Dobbs, but said he is wrong on the birth certificate issue. Mike Huckabee chimed in that Hillary Clinton would have used the issue against Obama in the primaries if there had been anything to the story. . . . . . (Watch Video)
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.com ...
“HE STILL HAS TO SHOW THE WRITTEN, LEGAL PROOF OF BIRTH. And that is all I am demanding.
When I had to show proof to get my Kentucky DL, they were not accusing me of being illegal. And, if I had brought in a whole roomful of idiot pundits and politicians to say I was born in the US, the DL office still would have required proof.”
All true. However, the COLB that Obama has already publicly shared/released is sufficient documentation of proof of birth to get a drivers license or passport etc. See #199 for the pic of it.
If you want more proof, then you really are asking for more than what the ‘serfs’ need to provide.
You seem to have a lot of trust in that picture, certainly more trust than I have in the credibility of Obama and his friends.
Prior to his inauguration, the numerous cases filed across the country, the Obama campaign was paying the legal costs. That is were a lot of the money was spent. He even hired 1-2 law firms to stop these suits. The sources are Newsmax and CNS.
Your perception is mistaken according to the letter of the law, spetznaz. Even the online resource that is most dubious of "birther" claims, FactCheck.org, clearly validates what FReeper ExtremelyExtremeExtremist has claimed:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
There was once a kid born in San Francisco to parents who were arguably subjects of the Chinese emperor. Although they hadn't stolen any airplane (planes not yet having been invented), they were definitely here illegally, and they thumbed their nose at the Chinese Exclusion Act.
When the kid returned from a visit to the Old Country, the San Francisco Collector of Customs denied him entry. No doubt, he would have found your argument compelling. However, when the dust settled, the kid had the last laugh, 6 to 2. See Wong Kim Ark.
That's interesting about the DOJ doing birth certificate defense.
A while back I did download Obama's campaign expenditure file from the FEC. Total expenditures on legal services for the campaign amounted to a little less than $1.2m, or about one sixth of one percent of the total staggering campaign budget. I would be surprised if birth certificate defense accounted for as much as one sixth of one percent of the one sixth of one percent (a couple of grand). The courts have not exactly been making him put up any kind of a defense.
Wong Kim Ark did not address the Constitutional term "natural-born citizen," even though it referred back to another Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett, cynwoody. Wong Kim Ark was determined to be native born. Note the lack of the term "natural-born," here. They are not the same, under the Constitution and under the law.
The reference back to Minor v. Happersett does not support your contention, either:
"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, 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.
Under Happersett, a natural-born citizen is correctly clarified, via understanding of this term of art going back to Bingham, to the John Jay letters, and to Vattel's The Law Of Nations, to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British, transmitted to him by his father.
However, that is me speculating. I will do some background research on what that law entailed, and get back to both of you. I have my suspicions that it did not pertain to the Indian dukawalahs and railway laborers, or the African clerks and farmhands, but rather to the settlers who, if you know British law then, knew that citizenship would 'expire' after one generation cycle.
However, you posted information, while all I am doing is speculation. To remedy that I will rout about and see what I dig up. After all, this is FR and not DU.
As for the rest of the COLB matter, I think that whether or not it is a rope-a-dope, it is still an important issue that deserves merit. After all, it is important that the head of a country, be he/her real or ceremonial, be OF AND FROM that country. Commonsense stipulates that. Have a blessed day.
Anne is trying to raise other issues and sell books. I love her despite her failings.... ; ~ )
Now what about whatsisname, you know Raila Odinga's clansman? Does having a non-citizen parent un-qualify one from NBC status, even if The Anointed of Allah were born in Hawaii? Call Ted back. This still needs work.
Are "anchor Babies", i.e., those 30 or 40 million kids born to illegal aliens, are they NBC's? What's the story? As a reasonable man, all I can accurately say is that I don't know a lot about this issue. I really feel that I should, but someone is paying out millions of hopefully not my tax money to keep me if not exactly in the dark, somewhat uncertain.
OBTW, how come all of those communities blessed with "Community Organizers," tend to remain hell-holes?
Nice try, tyke. The fact that the cases have been quashed and mooted speaks volumes about the skill of the Team Obama's Legal Department.
In other words, their "Motions to Dismiss," were ruled upon favorably for their client. We'll never know how many hours were billed in the preparation and filing of those motions. But we are talking about legal services that can cost up to many thousands per hour ... and then some for expenses.
Furthermore, tyke, we have no idea who is picking up the whole tab, so tracking your dime is not easy. The figure of about $1 million is very reasonable.
Yes, I trust corroborated photographs more than I trust politicians.
Right. It's funny that freeper "Crazieman" has to explain this to freeper "Rational thought". Ironic!
“Yes. Im sure there are lots of places that would take their proof of someones birth from a newspaper announcement!”
The newspaper announcement of Obama’s birth was in a Honolulu newspaper. The birth announcements were derived from filings to the health statistics dept in hawaii. The newpaper announcement by itself proves only that someone put in to the bureau of vital statistics to register the birth, which makes it 99% likely that a birth *did* take place in that locality:
However, this also corroborates the fact that state of Hawaii saying “we have Obama’s birth record on file” that they meant these records that were filed on Aug 1961:
Now there is a 99% chance that they are referring to those same birth records in the announcement. What records would they be. If you ask State of Hawaii for birth records, you will get back a COLB, Certification of Live Birth and this is valid certification of birth sufficient for purposes of obtaining a passport, drivers license, etc.
It looks like this:
So the previous 2 facts, including the newspaper announcements (there were 2) and the State of Hawaii PR corroborate Obama’s birth record, and are consistent with the COLB Obama has shared.
The argument has been made that State of Hawaii didn’t vouch for the details of the COLB so it ‘means nothing’, however there are privacy laws which forbid that so the state of Hawaii cannot by law say any more. To assume the COLB is not valid, you would have to assume some highly unlikely events, including State of Hawaii giving the appearance of vouching for a birth record which is instead a very public fraud. In addition, you’d have to explain away the newspaper announcement as not being a record of a local birth (when 99.9% of the time that’s what they are). And then you’d have to assert that the COLB, with a stamp, embossed seal, etc. was a forgery/fraud.
I’d rate the chance of this about 1 in a million.
Far more likely is that the newspaper birth announcement fro Aug 1961 was was it appeared to be - a birth announcement of a local birth, and the COLB is what it appears to be - valid documentation of Obama’s records on file with State of Hawaii.
That doesnt mean Obama’s not hiding something in his bio, but it does mean any claims he was born outside Honolulu are extremely unlikely.
The term “natural-born citizen” is quoted and used in the Wong ruling. They cited other cases where the term was used, for example:
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 662-663 [cit. omitted.]
“Wong Kim Ark was determined to be native born. Note the lack of the term “natural-born,” here. They are not the same, under the Constitution and under the law.”
- Such a distinction has not been put in law nor is it in any SCOTUS rulings or accepted by any court.
Happersett quote: “These were natives or natural-born citizens” - showing that natural-born is synonymous with native-born in the eyes of the court.
“Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. “ - That’s what the Wong decision ruled on, saying 14th amendment meant just that. They removed the doubt on it.
Also, “doubt” does not enter into it when you have the possibility of dual nationality. See Perkins v Elg (a dual nationality does not cause you to lose natural-born US citizenship; you only lose your US citizenship by renouncing it).
Maybe now you could explain the reports that the address given in that 99% sure newspaper birth announcement (LOL) is not an address where anyone connected with the de facto president ever lived.
“The interesting things here is that by demanding the BC,we are being painted as kooks claiming Hussein was born on Mars, in Kenya, on a raft in the Pacific. It doesnt matter if he was born in Hawaii with the entire board of directors of the hospital in the delivery room. HE STILL HAS TO SHOW THE WRITTEN, LEGAL PROOF OF BIRTH. And that is all I am demanding.
When I had to show proof to get my Kentucky DL, they were not accusing me of being illegal. And, if I had brought in a whole roomful of idiot pundits and politicians to say I was born in the US, the DL office still would have required proof.
Tell me Ann, what is it about the notion that the President should to meet the same standards as all of us proletariat serfs that makes us kooks?
Supposedly, America was different because our leaders were subjected to the same rule of law that we were. If that is not the case, then they are not our leaders or representatives......they are our rulers. And they are doing a damn good job of playing that part.”
I don’t know about your state, ChildOfThe60s, but in mine if you took a long form handwritten bc to the dmv, it wouldn’t be accepted. You need a printed government issued colb to get a drivers license, and the same for a passport. This was true even prior to the 08 elections, so its not something that was snuck in to lesser the birther argument.
The only difference between you and Barack I can see is that numerous political figures weren’t called in to validate the veracity of your paperwork. To that extent I’d say Obama “WAS” held to a higher standard than you were.
That the colb is acceptable for presidential office is not something that should be disputed, since its been acceptable for quite some time now. I look at the cases disputing it the same way I look at the constant cases assailing Sarah Palin. I know shes done little or nothing wrong, but hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent defending those allegations. Defending yourself is just something you do. It doesn’t imply guilt.
Besides, if his bc said he was born in Kenya, his colb would too... This kind of argument draws attention away from more realistic issues.
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.