My final thought on the birther issue

A lot of you have asked if I’ve gotten any more emails. Below the fold, a compilation of emails that have come in. But above the fold, my final word.

Based on the facts, it is very clear that President Obama is our lawfully elected President and the Office of President of the United States of America requires that though we may disagree with him and oppose him, we recognize and respect his position as President — a position entrusted to him by 69,456,897 voting Americans, or 52.9% of the popular vote.

As early at 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790) . . . . Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

Even were the American public to fall under the belief that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and 49 years ago his associates fabricated a narrative, a birth record, and placed birth announcements in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin on August 4, 1961, to ensure that 49 years later he could become President of the United States, it is undisputed that Barack Obama’s mother is and has always been an American citizen. Therefore Barack Obama is and has always been an American citizen.

The leaps of logic and reason to arrive at such a conspiracy are unbefitting the credibility of anyone and not worthy of further discussion. Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup — the removal of the President of the United States after 52.9% of the American public instructed their Electoral College representatives to place their votes for him. The time to even be willing to entertain these issues from those who claim a conspiracy has long past.

A conservative movement worthy of leading this nation must be willing to cast aside those who, for whatever reason, cannot and will not be persuaded that the President is our legitimately, constitutionally elected President.

I'd like to chip in my two cents.

The author of this article is ignorant of the matter and reaches conclusions by way of a faulty process. There is a plausible, repeat, plausible, but unlikely scenario by which all the documents and all of the statements made by the officials of Hawaii after examination of the documents could be consistent with a birth outside of the United States without any conspiracy having taken place. That includes the birth notices in the newspaper. If the birth was outside of the United States under the statutes cited in the reply to follow, it seems perfectly apparent that Obama was not a "natural born citizen" because he was not, in fact, a citizen of the United States at all at the time of his birth if it occurred out of the country.

The problem is that just because there is a plausible scenario by which Obama could have been recorded in Hawaii as being born there when he in fact was not born there, does not mean that that happened. Indeed, there is absolutely no extrinsic evidence (I am discarding the radio interview the grandmother as being recanted) that he was born anywhere other than in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has taken such pains to avoid producing an original longform birth certificate is not necessarily evidence that he was born outside of America. It alone is insufficient proof.

Any officer of the state of Hawaii examining the file would conclude that the longform birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii and there is no evidence to the contrary. Hence the two public announcements of the Hawaiian officials are plausibly consistent with a fraud which might have been committed by the mother or the grandparents but which is not the product of a conspiracy. Either the mother or one of the grandparents could have made a simple application to Hawaii registrar and secured a birth certificate with no documentary evidence other than an affidavit of birth at home and some sort of evidence, such as a drivers license which was held by Ann Dunham Obama, of residence in the state.

Here is a reply along those lines from some time ago:

I have seen the article posted some time ago here on Free Republic: Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts) which makes it clear that his mother, or even his grandparents, could have secured a birth certificate merely on the filing of an affidavit or perhaps even only an application. Evidently, his mother could have presented a drivers license which she evidently had or even as little as a telephone bill to show proof of residency, simply averring that her son was born there in Hawaii, and she would have received a Hawaiian birth certificate. The article cited goes on to describe three other methods by which a fraudulent certificate for Barack Obama could have been obtained in 1961 in Hawaii.

More, the author continues to the effect that Stanley Ann Obama would have been motivated to do so because her son was not entitled to citizenship under the existing statute if he were born abroad with only one parent a citizen who had not lived five years after the age of 14 in America.

Therefore, it is possible that when Doctor Fukino examined the "vital records" she saw an application or affidavit that said that the baby was born in Hawaii and she saw the Birth Certificate that was issued as a result which would also show birth in Hawaii. She saw nothing indicating a foreign birth in the file and therefore she could quite properly say that the vital records show birth in Hawaii. Indeed, to say anything else would be to venture a fact which appeared nowhere in the record.

While I take issue with your well reasoned and articulate perspective on the motivations of Doctor Fukino-I come to exactly the opposite conclusions-I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open. That is not to say that the probabilities are for a foreign birth, merely that it is not illogical to maintain that a foreign birth is quite consistent with the facts as we know them, the Certification of Live Birth, the procedures and regulations in place in Hawaii in 1961, and two statements of Doctor Fukino.

I think we probably both can agree that we will find nothing in the file which shows foreign birth. We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us. We have the burden to move it across the goal line. Even if the original birth certificate were released and it was revealed that it was based on family affidavits, we lose. We need extrinsic evidence of foreign birth.

That is most likely what happened. Either his parents fabricated the announcement or his grandparents. Even within my own family all it has ever taken to sway a new grandmother was to hold the baby.

All this rhetoric about his place of birth is tiresome, but it is of good consideration. If anything good came from the election of 0bama it is this: He has exposed a flaw in the election system. Some states are moving to fill in this blank, others realize they failed to fulfill their obligation.

I do have a huge problem with Erickson say, “Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup.” How then, if not through the courts, does one achieve redress? It is a grievance, when We the People, after reasonable request are denied evidence required for the eligibility of office for any politician. The negligence of any party should never be cast upon citizens and citizens are never required to bear such crimes.

I too am tired of the accusation the “birthers” fail to recognize the Office of the President. On the contrary, Birthers efforts to hold any politician accountable to their elected office demonstrates great respect for the office and its role within our Nation. Birthers seek to uphold the legitimacy of any politician who seeks claim to office.

“Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup — the removal of the President of the United States after 52.9% of the American public instructed their Electoral College representatives to place their votes for him.”

Well, that clears it up. Apparently, the recognized process by which the American people can legally amend the Constitution no longer applies.

I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theories that attempt to link the placement of the birth announcement with a covert plan to have the infant 0bama elected President. That’s ridiculous.

I DO, however, fully agree with those who challenge his eligibility based on his citizenship at time of birth. It seems perfectly clear that his claimed father was NOT a US Citizen.

There are far too many questions about a great deal of this pretender’s past that deserve answers...citizenship among them.

It’s time to take back the country. But, that doesn’t start by selectively enforcing the Constitution.

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.