Donald Trump's 'birther' claims, then and now

CNN ^ | updated Sept 10, 2016 | video compilation from various news sources

[Seizethecarp]

Videos of Trump and surrogates from CNN and other networks at link compiled by CNN updated through this AM...

[Fantasywriter]

as he = as his

[Fantasywriter]

Thanks for the ping.

[Son House]

Obama brought it all upon himself (and us) by not producing a required document (birth certificate) in the first place to run for President.

[poinq]

Look Obama is the first Birther. And Hillary was the loudest Birther. If Obama didn’t lie about his birth place to get bigger speaking audiences we would not have this issue at all.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[BenLurkin]

Seems to me he had questions more than “claims”

[Fantasywriter]

‘Hillary Clinton created the “birther” movement.’

Agree with you on this...BUT, Hillary didn’t get the idea out of thin air. Obama’s own literary agents believed he was born in Kenya. There are other Kenyan citations too. The likeliest explanation is that Obama claimed to be born in Kenya until shortly before his presidential run. Hence, he is the orginal birther.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It’s amazing how every attack they have made has just strengthened Trump.

You’d think they’d figure out that if they really wanted to hurt him they’d endorse him.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

SNOPES: Born in Kenya, Raised in Indonesia

[Seizethecarp]

Giuliani and Conway are claiming that Trump now believes that Barry was born in the US, but Trump has never said this live on video.

The Trump campaign may be sending surrogates out deliberately to tell “white lies” to the public in the final days of the campaign that Trump can later deny just to pull in some black voters that he needs in Cleveland and other big urban areas in swing states on the margin.

We know how close Trump is to Sheriff Arpaio, and Arpaio has never recanted that Barry’s BC is forged. Arpaio has never said Barry was born anywhere else, though.

[Grampa Dave]

Clinton started the Birther movement in 2007/2008:

New analysis from the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton. Using his wayback machine on Wednesday, the Post‘s David Weigel took an in-depth look at the origins of the false rumors that President Obama is a practicing Muslim who was not born in a America. Weigel’s reporting contains the final pieces of a very disturbing puzzle.

What Weigel found and re-reported was astounding, details many of us had forgotten or never heard of, including a 2007 bombshell memo from the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

[Fantasywriter]

Exactly. Originally, I was inclined to call the agents liars when they claimed the “fact,” of Obama’s Kenyan birth didn’t come from Obama himself. Nowadays I am inclined to believe them. Most likely they researched Obama before securing two large advances for the above mentioned book deal. Word at Harvard was that Obama was born in Kenya. Voila: the entire, ‘out of africa,’ concept was born.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Too bad for the demokkrats Obama is NOT running for re-election....many of them will not be going out of their way to go to the voting booths on November 8.

[Redwood71]

Trump’s right. But what difference does it make. The whole thing was that it made Obama unable to hold the office of the president. He’s about to leave after two terms of the lie. What are you going to do, take his pension? And no one, see Bill Clinton, is going to go after him for something that will cost more to accomplish than not to go.

Ain’t worth it, cousin.

red

[LadyBuzz]

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563

Just when it appeared that public interest was fading, celebrity developer Donald Trump has revived the theory that President Barack Obama was born overseas and helped expose the depth to which the notion has taken root—a New York Times poll Thursday found that a plurality of Republicans believe it.
If you haven’t been trolling the fever swamps of online conspiracy sites or opening those emails from Uncle Larry, you may well wonder: Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?

[DiogenesLamp]

Peeps knew Jesse Jackson was an American.

Yes. He didn't go through the first half of his life telling everyone he was born in Kenya.

[DiogenesLamp]

And no one, see Bill Clinton, is going to go after him for something that will cost more to accomplish than not to go.

Cost has nothing to do with it. People didn't turn Clinton into a greasy spot because they are all pretty much on the same side anyways.

The Elite of the Republican Party gets their power from the same sources as the Democrats get their power. Wealthy people who live in the DC/Boston Corridor and who want government policy set so that it continuously enriches them.

[Seizethecarp]

“But what difference does it make.”

It looks to me like the Clinton Campaign’s sagging poll numbers (partly due to marginal loss of blacks from Trumps black outreach) has caused a RED ALERT to go out to sympathetic media personalities and the entire MSNBC lineup to remind black voter all day every day about Trump “demanding” precious Barry’s “papers” as though he were in “South Africa”!

The Dems have to find someway to drive unenthusiastic blacks to the polls for Hillary...so YES it (the “birther” issue) DOES matter after all of these years.

[Pinkbell]

It's very odd (but not surprising) that they have resurrected this. Trump never brought this up. He hasn't used it as a campaign point. They are now bringing up old controversies because Trump is doing better in the polls. A Trump supporter on one of the panels asked why this was being brought up again, and Van Jones stated it's because Trump is trying to court black voters. In fact, that seems to be the line of choice from the Democrats on the panels. They say that he is trying to court black voters, but that is something that was offensive to black voters because it was seen as a racist way to undermine our first black President.

First of all, this was started by Hillary's supporters. Were they racist? I thought all the racists had joined the Republican Party. That's what liberals say.

Second of all, I don't believe Trump would have questioned the birth certificate of someone like Corey Booker, Tim Scott, etc. The reason Obama's birth certificate was questioned by Trump and others is because of rumors out there (started by Hillary supporters) of Obama having been born in Kenya. He had a unique background with his father being from Africa and then moving to Africa with his mother and stepfather. As far as his mother:

In 2008, Jim Geraghty from the National Review Online suggested Barack Obama release his birth certificate to "debunk some rumors." In his article Geraghty wrote, "one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen under because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for “ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Obama's mother was 18 when he was born which means she did not meet this requirement.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Citizenship-Scandal-Birth-Certificate/2015/01/28/id/621307/#ixzz4Jsr3qOIa Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now!

Plus there were questions as according to the Gateway Pundit, an article about him running for Senator said he was Kenyan born. Also, there was the dispute over his grandmother saying she was in the delivery room, which, according to the interview on Politifact, she corrected and explained that he was born in Hawaii. Jerome Corsi, however, maintains she was pressured.

It was a mess, and then with him not releasing it, it led to more questions. If people doubted my birth, I would produce my birth certificate right away.

For the record, I'm not saying I am/was a birther, but I am just saying there were reasons that people thought that.

Third, they say that Trump is trying to get the black vote, and this issue is hurting him with the black vote. The people arguing this are all Democrats! Why in the world would they be concerned about this or want Trump to apologize if they thought it would help Trump with the black vote? My thoughts are that the majority of black voters aren't thinking about that issue anymore as they are more concerned with their futures, but I believe the media/Dems brought it up under the guise of "concern" in order to siphon black votes away from Trump or encourage black voters to vote Democrat.

[Chewbarkah]

“Why is this even coming up now?”

Because black voters have shown little enthusiasm for Hillary, and many are polling as supporting Trump. Hillary will lose if this trend continues and she is desperate.

Hillary’s solution is to evoke the “birther” issue to incite black Obama supporters against Trump, to prevent them from escaping the Democrat plantation. Hillary is channeling not only Saul Alinsky, but George Wallace.

The sudden eruption of these birther stories almost guarantee coordination by Clinton’s campaign. Her media serfs forget to mention: 1) that Hillary’s Campaign started the whole birther thing in 2008; and 2) that Obama publicized the idea that he was born in Kenya for 20 years!