Coulter: Nirthers Are Just a Few 'Cranks' (Free Republic mentioned)

Little Green Footballs ^ | July 27, 2009 | Charles Johnson

[EveningStar]

Ann Coulter brushes off the nirth certifikit kooks as just a few cranks, nothing to worry about, pay no attention, it’s the media trying to make conservatives look bad again...

And over at Free Republic, hundreds of commenters are now convinced that Ann Coulter is a RINO and a traitor...

[ReignOfError]

Geraldo Rivera's father is named Rivers.

Geraldo Rivera's father was named Cruz Rivera, and emigrated to New York from Puerto Rico. The younger Rivera did change his given name from Gerald to Geraldo, the name his father's relatives called him.

[El Gato]

My theory is that Obama was born a HI but wanted to keep his original cert under wraps because it had some other embarrassing tidbit. Probably lists his religion as Muslim

If you'd looked at any of the several early '60s, or any other, Hawaii Certificates of Live Birth, posted on any of dozens of threads, you'd know that religion is not included on the form. Not the child's, nor either of the parents.

So much for that theory.

About the only embarrassing things that could be there would be a blank where "father's" information should be. Or the father's information is for someone other than Barack Hussien Obama Senior.

Another possibility is that a name change is reflected, Barack or Barry Soetero, is a possibility, although not a particularly embarrassing one, we already know that his mother married Soetero, had another child with him, and that Soetero might have adopted him. Then the father's name would show as "Lolo Soetero as well. Big Whoop. It might reflect a change *back* to Barack H. Obama, after Stanley and Lolo divorced. Again, big whoop.

None of that would be worth the effort that has gone into keeping the information "contained". The "problem" information has to be something significant. Else why commit the crime of forgery and fraud by creating a fake Certification of Live Birth. For a fake one their is, or was.

[ReignOfError]

.you don’t have a social security number on a birth certificate. One does not get a social security at birth...

Not the newborn's SSN. The parents'.

[El Gato]

Obama has never even acknowledged the COLB that is out there.

No, but his mouthpiece Gibbs has said they, the campaign, put the image out there.

So, given that it's forged, they are criminals and need to be brought to Justice.

[so_real]

That's a fine opinion you have. I respect your opinion. It's held by many and even associates of my own.

But it is not correct. The natural-born requirement is an exclusive concept, not an inclusive one, and therefore narrow by default. I need make no effort to narrow it "strangely" or otherwise. It was also an expression well understood at the time it was penned and for a great time afterward, though (sadly) not so much today.

John Bingham : "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him."

Bingham reiterated the commonly understood difference between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" in this very statement. Note that the concepts between the two assertions are very similar. But in the first instance, he specifically denotes the allegiance of the parents as being qualitative of the "natural born citizen" status. In the second instance, only the allegiance of the native born individual is qualitative of the "citizen" status.

History is my ally. You say many "natural born" citizens today have parents owing their allegiance to other governments. I say that is untrue. Children of parents owing their allegiance to foreign governments born on U.S. soil required an interpretation from the Supreme Court to even be considered "citizens" (see Wong Kim Ark) -- natural born was off the table entirely. They were not afforded the status of "natural born" at that time or any other. Had it not been for this ruling, children of foreign nationals born on U.S. soil would arguably not even be considered citizens today. I don't disagree with a birthright of citizenship myself -- my point view mirrors Bingham's own. But, I also won't artificially add to that birthright of "citizenship" a birthright of "natural born citizenship". That would not be true to the original intent of our Founders, and would take an Amendment to the Constitution itself to introduce.

Out of curiosity, which multiple cases and current law do you feel contradicts Bingham's dissertation? I've searched and found none.

[El Gato]

Because he says in his book and on his website that his father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth.

Actually a British Subject, since Kenya was at that time a British Crown Colony. He and his father became Kenyan citizens when that country gained it's independence from the UK in '63. Since he didn't live in Kenya, as far as we know, he may have retained his Brit Subject status as well.

[El Gato]

His book is not a legal document. His father could be anyone. You need the birth certificate to get the real answer.

That's certainly true. He wouldn't be considered a Britisth subject, now Kenyan, unless there is proof that his father was one.

But, why bother with the fake BC that just confirms, or at least doesn't conflict, with what you've already aknowledged? The Certification doesn't show parents' nationality or place of birth. Long form does show place of birth of the parents)

[El Gato]

There are three types of American citizen:
1. A United States citizen -- one who is in the country legally.

That would be a Legal resident alien, or a legal visitor of some sort, like someone on a student visa.

2. A citizen of the United States -- one who was born on U.S. soil or has one parent who is a citizen or has become naturalized.

That's actually two categories. If the birth was in the US, then a citizen, but not necessarily a natural born one. And a "naturalized citizen if the person had one Citizen parent who qualified to pass citizenship to the child, and the birth was overseas. Of course there are other, and more common ways to be naturalized.

3. A natural-born citizen of the United States -- one who was born on U.S. soil to two citizens of the United States, neither of whom owes allegiance to a foreign nation.

That is probably the most commonly accepted definition. Except that US Citizens are assumed to not owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. Thus anyone born to two US Citizens on US sovereign territory, is definitely a natural born citizen.

[null and void]

I posted this about a year ago...

---------------------------------------------------------

I believe/know a very few things:

The CoLB that his campaign released is a forgery.

Someone risked jail time to forge this document.

It takes all of half an hour on the 'net, and about $25-$40 to have a legitimate certified copy of your own BC delivered within a week. (I know this because I just did that very thing last month)

Therefore, I conclude that there must be some compelling reason to falsify his BC.

The compelling reason that comes to mind is that the real document would kick him out of the running for being the most powerful man on earth.

From this I conclude that his true documentation shows one or more of the following truths:

• He was not born in the United States, and is therefore constitutionally unqualified for the job. This is a show stopper. There is no way to "fix" this or inoculate himself against this, or win over voters on this issue. It is the premier campaign killer issue.

Therefore, I regard this as the most probable explanation for the deceit.

All the other possible reasons are much lower grade:

• His BC shows that he's a bastard. Although this might be personally embarrassing, nobody cares, a goodly fraction of the electorate is in the same boat, or closely related to someone who is.
• His birth name isn't Barak Hussein Obama. So what? We already know his his name changed when he was adopted in Indonesia. People can and do change their names, it isn't a crime, or even particularly shady.
The only question it really raises is why did he chose a muslim name? That's rather easy to explain away - he took his genetic father's name. Who can argue with that? Especially when muslim names had some popularity among blacks who didn't know just how deeply involved muslims were in the slave trade.
• His real birth certificate lists his race as something other than "African". This would be more of a problem. His whole campaign is founded on his being "the first black president" come January. Still not lethal to the campaign, but it would be awkward to 'splain away.

• There is something else embarrassing on his official BC.

Like what?
There could be nothing conceivably embarrassing about:

His time of birth
His birthday
His city of birth
His county of birth
His island of birth
His religion (It's not even listed)
His mother's race
The date it was filed

A few things could be a slightly embarrassing:

The serial number? Maybe? Suppose it's really 151-1961-000666?
(Nope. It turned out to be 151-1961-010641)...

His father's name wasn't listed. Not terribly unlikely if he and Stanley Ann split up before he was born. No one cares.

His mother's maiden name. Suppose she really did use her Anna Toot drinkin' ID to get married? Would that really suffice as a reason for someone to risk jail time by falsifying his documents? More to the point, would it disqualify Barak? I don't think so. If anything it could be played for the sympathy vote, young naïve Stanley Ann trying to do her best in covering up the mistakes of her youth. Mother's maiden name listed as Anna Toot? Yawn.

That leaves the big enchilada:
His birth name. Was it really the noble and exotic Barak Hussein Obama II?

Or was it Mortimer Snerdly Toot, hmmmm?

Live that one down!

----------------------------------------------------------

Since then, and after watching him throw a baseball, I've began to wonder if his sex was listed as female or hermaphrodite...

[El Gato]

There is no need to see a birth certificate from zer0. He is a citizen of the United States. There is no question about that at all. His mother was a citizen when he was born, so he is a citizen.

That is just not true. If he was born outside the US, with a foreign father and citizen mother not yet 19, which his mother was not unless he was born several months later than the fake COLB shows, he was not even a citizen at birth. In 1961, and into the mid 1980s, a child born abroad of one citizen and one non citizen parent would only be a citizen at birth if the citizen parent had lived in the US for at least 10 years, 5 of which were after their 14th birthday. The law still has that provision, but the times have been shortened to 5 years of resident, 2 of which much be after the 14th birthday. Look it up.

[El Gato]

In the Elg Case, the Supreme Court said that US law determines US citizenship, and that fact that a second country might be capable of claiming Ms. Elg as a citizen did not defeat or terminate her status as a natural-born US citizen. The same reasoning would apply to Sen. Obama. And since Sen. Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, the British could also have claimed him as a citizen.

Ms. Elg's parents were naturalized citizens of the US at the time of her birth. Thus she was born on US soil of two citizen parents, and was a natural born citizen. BHO was not born of two citizen parents on US soil, even if he was born on US soil.

Different situtations entirely. The question in "Elg" was could she lose her citizenship, natural born or otherwise, on account of the treaty with Sweden, and the actions of her parents. The answer to that was no. But she first had to be a citizen, and in her case she was a natural born citizen.

[El Gato]

In the Elg Case, the Supreme Court said that US law determines US citizenship, and that fact that a second country might be capable of claiming Ms. Elg as a citizen did not defeat or terminate her status as a natural-born US citizen. The same reasoning would apply to Sen. Obama. And since Sen. Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, the British could also have claimed him as a citizen.

Ms. Elg's parents were naturalized citizens of the US at the time of her birth. Thus she was born on US soil of two citizen parents, and was a natural born citizen. BHO was not born of two citizen parents on US soil, even if he was born on US soil.

Different situtations entirely. The question in "Elg" was could she lose her citizenship, natural born or otherwise, on account of the treaty with Sweden, and the actions of her parents. The answer to that was no. But she first had to be a citizen, and in her case she was a natural born citizen.

[TheOldLady]

Thanks for the info! This is as confusing as can be, more to zer0’s good, as we argue and bandy inaccurate data about.

[TheOldLady]

Thanks again for the clarifying info.

[OafOfOffice]

I think I made it clear nothing was verified. we were talking rumors. one rumor sometimes open up the truth. thank you for your verification of the facts.

[TheOldLady]

Thanks for the big-gun smackdown.

[BP2]

That is just not true. If he was born outside the US, with a foreign father and citizen mother not yet 19, which his mother was not unless he was born several months later than the fake COLB shows, he was not even a citizen at birth.

Think of the ramifications if he wasn't "a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years" (Article I, Sect 3, Clause 3) when he was sworn in Jan 2005 as a US Senator.

[El Gato]

He has a passport. He must have shown them his real birth certificate.

You've seen it? That is his passport from the time before he was a US Senator? How do you know he has one, or that it doesn't show his place of birth somewhere other than Hawaii. It is possible for naturalized citizens to get a passport you know, but not to be President. I doubt they make Senators submit their birth certificate or naturalization papers, when getting their Official Passport. -

Someone felt it important to "touch" his electronic passport file, back during the primary season, so what's there may not be trustworthy.

[TheOldLady]

I read it. Both her parents were citizens of the U.S. when she was born on U.S. soil. She’s natural-born apples, and zer0 is alien oranges on this case, wosg.

[El Gato]

That would have eliminated many of the Presidents in the 1700 and early 1800’s.

Yes it would have, if not for the "grandfathering" they received in the same sentence of the Constitution.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States