Nashville News Blog

It would be interesting to see Obama's birth certificate.

Barrack could make this all go away just by sending out a press release containing an original copy of the birth cert. Then the "nutters" and tinfoil hatters would have to go back to the JFK conspiracy.

Why doesn't he do this? One would think that he would just want this to go away.

In my opinion, his unfortunate misrepresentation of a document(created in 2007) has driven much of this kerfuffle.

Here is the Non-Birth Certificate in question.

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate-HUSSEINq.jpg

It is real simple. Just release an original document of birth. Barrack is already elected. American's won't really care if his given name was Barry Soerto or his religion was listed as Muslim. The release would change nothing.

So why doesn't he?

Hey dipshits, this "controversy" is way over. The birth certificate in question has been pawed over, sniffed, rubbed, and authenticated. A long time ago. Go away.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

I can't believe we're still talking about this...

Here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

And:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

It seems that the issue is not yet over, Stellbardo.

If it were over there would not be several lawsuits addressing this very issue.

Obama could make this issue go away just by releasing his birth certificate. I understand why this concerns some people. It carries the scent of corruption or mendacity.

Things like the AP photo of Obama's school records don't help the matter.

http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D

Name: Barry Soetoro
Nationality: Indonesian
Religion: Islam

Now admittedly, that was filled out by his muslim stepfather. There was no legal requirement for him to fill this out truthfully. But it adds to the worries of the conspiracy theorists.

The best course for Obama would be to just release a copy of his birth certificate. Then the issue would die and Campfield would move on to his "Guns in Saloons" proposal.

@anonymous:

Did you also happen to notice that the school record you so proudly point to also lists President Obama's place of birth as Honolulu Hawai'i?

JL says:

Barrack could make this all go away just by sending out a press release containing an original copy of the birth cert...

The release would change nothing.

So why doesn't he?

___

Umm, didn't you just answer your own question?

Angi,

I am not sure that this case addresses Obama's place of birth. It may, but I have not read the actual petition. I, for one, have little doubt that Barrack was born in Hawaii.

Since you are bringing up peripheral issues of little importance, we might as well discard the other nonissues. It does not matter if Obama was a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia. It does not matter that he traveled to Pakistan on a non US passport.

Those issues were addressed in 1967 in AFROYIM v. RUSK.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=253

Unless he actually renounced his citizenship then he could have dual, triple, or whatever number of additional citizenship's.

I am more interested in what the original documents said more from an historical point of view.

Oh for crying out loud.

Obama produced the same document Hawaii issues whenever you request a Birth Certificate. It's the same document any Hawaiian would present for a Social Security Card or a Passport.

This is the biggest tinfoilhat nutball garbage ever to hit Republicans. According to these idiots, 50 steate electioin officials, the Hawaii Health Department (which has verified Obama was born in Hawaii) going back 47 years, Barack Obama's mother, father, grandparents, the Democratic Party, the John McCain campaign, nearly all of the members of the US House and Senate, and the entire United States Supreme Court were in on a conspiracy to put a Kenyan into the white house.

Even the conspiracy theories about Area 57, Roswell, and the faked moon landings have more credibility that this nonsense.

JL,

The only issue is there ar3e a bunch of whackjobs on the internet who are putting out such a freakshow of a conspiracy theory they make the moon landing deniers look sane by comparison.

Strangely enough, several states will issue an new birth certificate with "redacted" information.

http://www.drbecky.com/birthcert.html

Birth Certs don't seem like a very secure way to identify folks.

This whole situation strikes me as peculiar. If Obama has nothing to hide why doesn't he just expose these people for the crackpots that he says they are by proving beyond a doubt that he is qualified to hold the office? Instead he continues to hide behind lawyers and other proxies who use legalisms and ridicule to discredit what would have been a serious issue had anyone but their candidate been called into question.

What is also peculiar now that I reflect upon it is how prepared the naysayers are to refute the alleged crackpotism. Some of the folks posting on this here to fore obscure website seem to be overly eager and persistent in there desire to squash such a silly rumor. Do you think any such naysayer would be as dedicated in their refutation of those that believe in UFOs or other such conspiracy theories if they had no stake in the outcome?

Do any of you think white america would allow a blackman become the president of the united states without checking himout from his head to his ass? Black people use to be SLAVES with no rights and do you really think Obama has not been searched and researched????? Get over it and let's see what he can do.

Orly is spreading yet ANOTHER email hoax on her site as true.

The one from Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law.

First of all, it was written about the 2004 Bush-Gore election, not about Obama.

Second of all it's Hamline, not Hemline, and Olson said he never wrote it.

Third, the statistics are wrong.

But, Orly never lets anything like the "truth" stop her from posting inaccurate information... or for that matter... outright lies.

.

Al says:

If Obama has nothing to hide why doesn't he just expose these people for the crackpots that he says they are by proving beyond a doubt that he is qualified to hold the office?

__

Prove it to whom? The vast majority of the population is convinced beyond a doubt that he is qualified, and a tiny fraction won't believe it no matter what he does.

It's insane to insist that he has an obligation to convince every last doubter, and he has long since gotten to the point where only a small fringe remains.

Xyxox,

I want to agree with you. Being a black man I have no interest in seeing the first black president disqualified and disgraced. However, the solution to this problem is so embarrassingly simple that I cannot help but wonder if something is wrong. I admit I haven't been following this issue. I have just been googling around this topic and also found out that their are multiple reasons for him to be disqualified the least of which is his birth certificate. The primary objection seems to be that his father was a foreign national giving him dual nationality and thus split allegiances. To make matters worse he seems to have admitted to this publicly. That to me seems more relevant and a matter of judicial first impression certainly worthy of an opinion from the court.

buzz,

He HAS PRODUCED A LAWFUL DOCUMENT.

The document was verified by the Hawaii State Department of Helath. They stated emphatically, Barack Obama was born in Honolulu Hawaii.

Most of the cases do not name Barack Obama, they name state electioin officials or others. Those that do name Barack Obama require nothing more than the filing of a motion to dismiss.

Anybody can file a lawsuit. Multiple lawsuits were filed against Bush.

Our system allows nutballs like Orly Taitz to do this in order to insure legitimate cases will be heard.

Al,

HE already presented his birth certificate. There is nothing more he can do.

buzz,

Actually, a woman who knew the doctor (who is dead now) recalled a conversation about him because of the odd name. I don't have the link handy, but there is a person who gave her account of that conversation. Others involved could be dead, incapacitated or a lot of reasons for not coming forward. It was 47 years ago and even young adults who were present would be in their seventies now.

MainSkeptic,

To anybody who wants to know. We are several weeks into his presidency and this is the first time I heard of it. I didn't know about this issue until today. My wife didn't know about it. Ill ask around but I doubt anybody I know is aware of it because its too explosive not to discuss. How can you say everybody knows. What is the big deal anyway. Why aren't you encouraging him to release his vital records so you can laugh even harder at the doubters. If this is a scheme on the part of the people bringing suit then they should be made to pay for the court costs of those they sued and associated wasted public dollars.

These cases seem to have picked up their original impetus from a nutjob Democrat lawyer named Phil Berg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg

But even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Some of the cases seem to have merit.

The original, unaltered document would save the taxpayers and Obama quite a chunk of change. This 2007 Certificate from Hawaii, while official, does not meet the requirements of the petitioners.

Release it and end this mess.

Oh, and Buzz, you are wrong. His grandmother says she was at his birth.

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3324

Al,

Don't waste your time, here's a direct link to Barack Obama's birth certificate as certified by the Hawaii Department of Public Health:

Xyxox,

I hope your right. This is the last thing this nation needs right now. If he is found out to have come to office unlawfully the consequences will be devastating to the party. Especially, considering how Odom reacted. Its one thing to dismiss a claim its another to dismiss a man. This issue seems like the kind of thing that could needlessly put the President and our country in danger or worse. Being that the birth certificate doesn't seem to be the primary issue I would urge the courts to make a definitive ruling and not simply dismiss the case on standing. A sensible opinion will do more to put out these flames than all the endless speculating on the web.

OverTheTarget,

The Birth Certificate verified by factcheck.org and certified by the Hawaii Department of Public Health is Prima Facie Evidence in any court in the land.

It is proven beyond even a shadow of a doubt, Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at 7:24PM in Honolulu Hawaii.

Only nutball conspiracy theorists on par with moonlanding deniers won't admit to it.

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv246/freeper_mlo/polarik/birth_certificate_2_sm.jpg

Al,

No court any where is ever going to make any sort of a ruling on this because there is not a single person in the nation who has standing now.

Prior to January 89, 2008, every congressman and Senator in the United States Congress had standing, but only in the joint session. It would have taken one Congressman and one Senator to raise objection to the certification of the electoral votes. Not a single Congressman or Senator raised objection.

The point is now moot. Nobody can lawfully bring suit on this issue under the constitution. Prior to the elction, it was up to the several states to determine the status of candidates. 50 state elction officials found Obama qualified.

For what the birthers claim to be true would require the most epic conspiracy in human history, without a single word being leaked by the literally thousands of individuals involved.

The enitre nonsensical conspiracy theory is beyond incredulous.

"Don't you think it is strange that the address in the newspaper belonged to someone in no way connected to Obama? "

Man, Birthers are so brilliant!
I attended Univ of Hawaii in 1961, I rented space in a home near the university. I have no idea who actually owned the house, it was large and 3 families shared. Your brilliant comment tells me I didn't live there since the house belonged to someone else, wow, how smart you are. why do you smart people keep losing cases? Because you make up stuff!

"It's funny how you can't do anything in America without showing a valid birth certificate but you can become president while refusing and locking your's up so no one can see it"

Only by lying can you make this insanity seem like reason, and you just lied.

My birth state provides the same vital records as Hawaii, a COLB. I don't have an original birth certificate. I've had to provide it twice, if I recall, once for identity verification when I my drivers license was lost when I moved states, and once for my social security card replacement.

Xyxox,

Hawaii Department of Public Health only says that they have the "original" birth certificate; they don't say whether it's from Hawaii, Kenya (probably), or Uranus (even more probable).

By the way, can you tell me which hospital he was born in, and who the delivering doctor was? That info is on everyone's birth certificate... I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to answer this one, smart guy.

You are obviously a paid Obama shill.

The following is the order of US District Judge James Robertson to Philip Berg’s amended complaint for Hollister v. Soetoro:

Plaintiff’s amended complaint [#11] adds nothing to the original complaint except rhetoric and legal theory and creates no obligation upon the defendants to respond to it. Nor is the amended complaint responsive to defendants’ motion to dismiss [#9], opposition to which was due on 2/9/09. Unless points and authorities in opposition to the motion to dismiss are filed by 2/13/09, the motion will be treated as conceded and granted. It is SO ORDERED.
It appears that smack down time is tomorrow! 2/13, good luck Birthers!

Somebody named Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. The local newspaper recorded the birth. This just goes to show you how far these slimey libs will go -- they obviously planted it there 48 years ago.

vma224,

Obama's own sister doesn't even know which hospital he was born in.

And who was the delivering doctor? I didn't think you, or anyone else would know.

Also, how long do you think Obama's charade will go on for? I'll bet you're still waiting for Obama to fill your gas tank and pay your mortgage too. Losers.

I clicked the link and saw this: "Representative Swafford proposed bill for Tennessee's soveignty yesterday."

????

What does this mean? Is Swafford trying to get TN to secede?

Al,

I am very familiar with the concept of standing. I'd suggest you read the constitution regarding how a president is elected. No citizen of the United States has standing on this specific matter.

John McCain had standing to question Obama's documentation, but only by virtue of his position as a Senator.

The election fo a president is completed within the Congress ina joint session of both houses. This is why the only time and place after the various state officials have certified the legitimacy of any candidate is within that body. Prior to an election, the only people who have standing to question documentation would be the election officials of the several states.

The courts have no jurisdiction according to the Untied States constitution, thus they will always end up ruling that the cases are either a) brought by people with no standing or b) wholly without merit.

Hey there was ANOTHER lawsuit filed on Monday that requested, among other documents, Obama's longform birth certificate. Someone might want to let Campfield know about this one.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-et-al-Complaint-filed-250-am-20-Jan-2009-as-Amended-9-Feb-2009

It doesn't look like this issue is going away anytime soon.

Does anyone remember how long the Ginnifer Flowers case took? We might still be dealing with this case in 2012.

Many of you people have absolutely lost your minds. This is akin to Bill Clinton/Vince Foster. If there was anything to this, John McCain, Linda Lingle, and the entire Republican establishment, as well as Hillary in the primaries, would have been all over it. They weren't. Obama was born in Hawaii, case closed, get over it. This is never going anywhere. Obama doesn't have any thing more to prove on this issue. And he's not going to speak to it because of .0001 of the population who irrationally thinks he wasn't born here.

Xyxox,

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the matter of standing. Having practiced law for 27 years at the federal level has left me with a different impression.

As I don't think Obama's birth place is has any real consequence and since you seemed to have studied the matter so thoroughly. Could you also refute the point that is being made about his self admitted dual citizenship? If you could resolve this matter in my mind I just might be able to stop worrying and pry myself away from the computer and get some work done. :) This matter is more concerning to me than his place of birth as it more directly disqualifies him for POTUS. Any response would be most appreciated as it will save me hours of googling.

"Obama's own sister doesn't even know which hospital he was born in."

valid source for this, not the rumor but a real source, you can't can you, as this is made up Birther stuff. Make up some more!

Over the Target,

The state of Hawaii has repeatedly verified his birth in Hawaii. Pick a new conspiracy to get behind.

Richcares,

It's pointless putting in links. The conspiracy theorists are going to declare those invalid. Factcheck.org is a solid source but someone on a previous comment said that wasn't any good. In short, crack pots on conspiracy blogs: good, patriotic Americans. Real investigative sources: not to be trusted.

richCares,

Thanks, however, you have made matters worse for me. The page you linked to talks about a completely different issue than what I was requesting information about. I didn't realize he was adopted by a foreigner also! It looks like I am not going to get any sleep tonight. I agree partially with what is being said in the article. However, loss of citizenship can happen with adoption. I don't know enough about Indonesian law to have a meaningful opinion on the matter though. I don't think this is as weighty as what I was asking about though. What I was referring to was the President's admission that his father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth and thus Obama was born with dual citizenship. To be a natural born citizen one's parents must both be U.S. citizens and he must have been born on U.S. soil. If you dismiss the birthers as you call them that claim he was born somewhere else (Given the evidence your probably right about this) he is still disqualified due to his mixed parentage. Dual citizenship implies dual allegiance which is almost certainly not the definition of natural born citizen as the founders had intended. Just reading the briefs of some of the plaintiffs there appears to be evidence to support this interpretation. For the court to not weigh in on this issue seems a bit short sighted and dangerous. Given all the questions swirling around this matter needs to be looked at carefully within the public view. To not do so invites disaster, blackmail, or worse should any of it turn out to be the least bit true. I am sure everyone understands the consequence of the President being illegitimate. All laws, treaties, debts, etc. would be invalid. If there is refutation of this point I would be most apprecative. Thanks

"Maybe that info isn't on a TN BC, but it's on the long-form BC of HI in 1961."
long form no longer available according to Hawaii Dep of Health:
call them and ask at (808) 586-4541 during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. HST).

costs less than a dollar to call, don't be afraid to ask them, they will tell you, if you don't like it, sorry! but we know a Birther won't call, they will refuse to accept answer, it's all a conspiracy.

call them, double dare, I called them about my daughter, they gave her the short form! they won't answer about an individual but on the law. I know what a Birther will do, he won't call the state, he will quote some Birther site. Stange huh? It's so easy to get the right answer, but a Birther will refuse!

"The state of Hawaii has repeatedly verified his birth in Hawaii"

Wrong.

Yes, Hawaii verified that they have Obama's original BC, but they have NEVER said that the original is from HAWAII. Try reading the statements from Hawaiian officials closely. Anyone, from anywhere, was able to obtain that COLB in 1961 Hawaii, just as BO's mother did.

"To be a natural born citizen one's parents must both be U.S. citizens and he must have been born on U.S. soil."

can you quote a legal source for this statement as it is not in the constitution.

here's a Supreme Court case on a Chines American whose parts were born in China. the court called him "Natual Born", read court order here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lnU4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=%22+averments+of+the+amended+petition+show+that+the+appellee%22&source=web&ots=JO3uwWSS0j&sig=1TTDzYHWKTMbH5t6AjtvS99a--w&hl=en&ei=ZpOTSajHONWDtwfe_aXfCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Correction:
Yes, Hawaii verified that they have Obama's original BC, but they have NEVER said that the original is from HAWAII. Try reading the statements from Hawaiian Oficials who are Republican supporters of John McCain closely.

There, now that's it! Explain that OK?

I am from Hawaii and not even one Republican believes the Birther stuff, we all know where Obama was Born, that includes Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. In fact all 50 governors have no problem with BC.

Please go back to the dustbin with the Elvis is alive people.

vma224,

You are misinterpreting what is being said.
Justice Gray is citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (the definition is taken directly from the treatise) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = nbc .

In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama. As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“

The only point made here is that the parents need to be citizen's at the time of the child's birth. Immigrants who attain their citizenship and then subsequently have children would be natural born citizens. Obama's father I don't believe ever became a citizen. The reason I think the term natural born exists was used in the constitution is to distinguish those born without obligation to other entities. An interpretation which makes sense at the founding and I believe is indirectly affirmed In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) it says:

‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens’.”

This act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens”.

Thanks for the info.

Al says:

MainSkeptic,

To anybody who wants to know.
___

Have you seen the list of documents that various people are demanding? And you're saying that he should release any document to any individual who asks for it?

Can you name a single example in history where that has been required of any person?

It's just crazy. Every judge who has looked at this, every member of the Electoral College, every prosecutor who could conceivably bring a fraud suit, every member of Congress, etc., etc., has concluded that there's no issue here.

Sorry, insisting that he answer personally to every single request for documentation is just insane. If you're really learning about this for the first time, do a little homework. These crackpot theories were discredited months ago.

@al,

A "birther" in hiding. Only birthers use this language:

"To be a natural born citizen one's parents must both be U.S. citizens and he must have been born on U.S. soil. "

And, they used to refer to it as "Blood & Soil", until they found out that slogan was used by the Nazi's.

There is no law that says both parents must be US citizens. Not true.

You are trying to hide your tinfoil hat... but it's there in all it's glory.

Over The Target says:

I'd like to respond, but I just wouldn't know where to start... but the million bucks thing is a fact.

___

Start right there. What's the evidence that it's a fact, other than internet rumors?

NoBirther,

"A "birther" in hiding. Only birthers use this language"

Yeah, and only liberals with their panties in a wad resort to all the name-calling. A true product of the dumbed-down liberal educational system.

If only there were some way to involve the kids from MBA in this; it would be the perfect Pith thread.

MaineSkeptic says:

Start right there. What's the evidence that it's a fact, other than internet rumors?

Internet rumors, such as the fraudulent Obama COLB on FactCheck.org? Why do liberals always point to that fraud as proof?

"If only there were some way to involve the kids from MBA in this; it would be the perfect Pith thread."

Didn't Obama go to some sort of private school? I bet they had some wicked racist chants about the haoles.!

Over The Target - Yeah, ignore your lying eyes.

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

Same document anybody born in Hawaii would use to join the military, get a drivers license, obtain their passport, or prove where they were born.

Do you realize you are simply proagating a lie conceived on Stormfront? If you don't know what Stormfront is, I suggest you google it because I sure as heck won't link the site.

Yes, anonymous, er Over the Target, private schools also teach you to not believe everything you read or hear. I know because I went to one.

Xyxox,

Having read the briefs and looked at some of the dockets. The cases were not dismissed on the merits. They were dismissed for standing. That doesn't mean the arguments made were deemed incorrect it just means the court has declined to adjudicate it. The fact that politicians haven't got involved is not surprising to me either. I haven't heard anything about this in the media. If the media isn't making a big deal out of it why would a self interested politician do so. Especially, on such a delicate matter as this. Most politicians are cowardly opportunists. This is to risky for a proposition for most especially if it turns out Obama is telling the truth. As citizens though we have an obligation and right to question everything our leaders say and do. We are their bosses after all.

As to the point you are making about Chester A. Arthur I don't have all the facts about his parentage. In my brief reading on the subject it sounded like Arthur was purposely trying to hide this fact from the citizenry. Which in my mind is all the more reason to ask Obama for his credentials. Just because Arthur managed to get away with it doesn't mean we should let Obama do the same. As a lawyer I have seen what can happen when the law is ignored. It usually isn't pretty. If the law is ignored too much for too long you end up living in a totalitarian society.

Obama could have resolved this with the first suit by simply presenting his vital records like most presidential candidates do and threatening to sue for defamation. He hasn't done that, which leaves me with a sneaking suspicion something is wrong. Perhaps I am being a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but we are living in desperate times and I for one don't want something so easy to verify being the reason for the undoing of our republic.

None of the people on this site arguing for Obama's privacy have put forward a compelling reason why he shouldn't release his vital records. Every presidential candidate does. Bush seemingly had more to be afraid of than Obama and he managed to get elected despite flunking economics and doing a bunch of other questionable things. In fact it takes more time and money to lock down one's personal records than it does to release them. Plus Obama has an staff of 35 or so people who deal with nothing but lawsuits and information requests so your argument MaineSkeptic strikes me as misinformed. Plus everything Obama does now a President is a matter of public record so anyone arguing about his privacy rights being violated is taking liberties with the truth.

I am clearly not familiar with all the cases out there. Although I have a feeling this is about to become an obsession. But anybody who is on the fence should do their own investigation. There is absolutely no harm in asking as a citizen that our leaders prove who they are. We are entrusting them with all of our lives. Obama has made a big deal about open and honest government. This strikes me as an opportunity for him to prove he means it. As a public figure he has already been poked and prodded a little bit more isn't going to kill him. Especially, considering what is at stake. If he is who he says he is there is nothing in his vital records that could harm him or his presidency. It seems like a small price to pay considering the power he is being given in exchange.

Over The Target says:

MaineSkeptic says:

Start right there. What's the evidence that it's a fact, other than internet rumors?

Internet rumors, such as the fraudulent Obama COLB on FactCheck.org? Why do liberals always point to that fraud as proof?

___

I beg your pardon? That's your answer?

Just as I thought, not a shred of evidence. Why am I not surprised?

Xyxox,

Having read the briefs and looked at some of the dockets. The cases were not dismissed on the merits. They were dismissed for standing. That doesn't mean the arguments made were deemed incorrect it just means the court has declined to adjudicate it. The fact that politicians haven't got involved is not surprising to me either. I haven't heard anything about this in the media. If the media isn't making a big deal out of it why would a self interested politician do so. Especially, on such a delicate matter as this. Most politicians are cowardly opportunists. This is to risky for a proposition for most especially if it turns out Obama is telling the truth. As citizens though we have an obligation and right to question everything our leaders say and do. We are their bosses after all.

As to the point you are making about Chester A. Arthur I don't have all the facts about his parentage. In my brief reading on the subject it sounded like Arthur was purposely trying to hide this fact from the citizenry. Which in my mind is all the more reason to ask Obama for his credentials. Just because Arthur managed to get away with it doesn't mean we should let Obama do the same. As a lawyer I have seen what can happen when the law is ignored. It usually isn't pretty. If the law is ignored too much for too long you end up living in a totalitarian society.

Obama could have resolved this with the first suit by simply presenting his vital records like most presidential candidates do and threatening to sue for defamation. He hasn't done that, which leaves me with a sneaking suspicion something is wrong. Perhaps I am being a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but we are living in desperate times and I for one don't want something so easy to verify being the reason for the undoing of our republic.

None of the people on this site arguing for Obama's privacy have put forward a compelling reason why he shouldn't release his vital records. Every presidential candidate does. Bush seemingly had more to be afraid of than Obama and he managed to get elected despite flunking economics and doing a bunch of other questionable things. In fact it takes more time and money to lock down one's personal records than it does to release them. Plus Obama has an staff of 35 or so people who deal with nothing but lawsuits and information requests so your argument MaineSkeptic strikes me as misinformed. Plus everything Obama does now a President is a matter of public record so anyone arguing about his privacy rights being violated is taking liberties with the truth.

I am clearly not familiar with all the cases out there. Although I have a feeling this is about to become an obsession. But anybody who is on the fence should do their own investigation. There is absolutely no harm in asking as a citizen that our leaders prove who they are. We are entrusting them with all of our lives. Obama has made a big deal about open and honest government. This strikes me as an opportunity for him to prove he means it. As a public figure he has already been poked and prodded a little bit more isn't going to kill him. Especially, considering what is at stake. If he is who he says he is there is nothing in his vital records that could harm him or his presidency. It seems like a small price to pay considering the power he is being given in exchange.

Over The Target says:

MaineSkeptic says:

Under "City, town or location of birth" it says "Honolulu."
Haven't you even looked at it?

You're NOT looking at Obama's long-form, vault birth certificate!

___

Incredible, another lie!

Xyxox was clearly referring to the COLB -- that's the one that says "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding" -- and you responded by saying "It just never says WHERE he was born."

Your lies are out there for all to see. I'm not surprised you're cutting and running.
You're an embarrassment to the birfers, if such a thing is possible!

LOL!!!

The Scene folks thought it was pretty clever to put up a sign that said "birther lunatics, please give us traffic," didn't they? Now you'll never be able to get rid of them.

Anonymous: you are misinterpreting US v Ark yourself.
Justice Gray does make a reference to Minor. That reference is in relation to how common law is used in the US. There is also other case law cited throughout the decision.
He also cites US v. Rhodes and Justice Swayne:

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 [p663] 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.

This is from 1866.

Justice Gray also makes the following commentary in the decision:
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

And for a more contemporary legal opinion:

This is a statement made by Walter Dellinger (Assistant Attorney General) made on December 13, 1995 during a hearing on proposed legislation (HR 1363, 104th Congress) before a House subcommittee:

The Court, in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

There are no three tier citizenship systems. The US has only ever had two types of citizenship: born and naturalized.

angi,

The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1. For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.

The United States is not following common law and the Constitution will not be interpreted as if it were controlled by common law. There is enough evidence in our history and other laws to bear this out.

The first of which is precedent. In our history as a nation, every President we have ever had was born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens.

And it’s very important, especially in light of Justice Scalia’s very recent comments to the Federalist Society of November 22, 2008 wherein he said that the common law is dead and does not control in the USA:

“The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

You might want to hear Justice Scalia’s entire presentation:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp

Furthermore, it is very clear that the those who wrote the 14th Amendment believed that only those so qualified as all previous Presidents were eligible to be President under Article 2, section 1, Clause 5. This was made clear by Madison’s article:

“Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law” Dec 10, 2006

“John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.”

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, must also be read in light of the 14th Amendment which is just as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

@Retired Enforcement Officer,

You just pasted that same exact rant over on the Obama Conspiracy site. You called yourself "Retired Peace Officer" there.

Maybe you should have spent some time there instead of just posting your nonsense. Most of what you're writing has been debunked there.

Why is it not surprising that this wordy garbage is a cut-and-paste job?

I guess the pseudo-reasonable imploring that producing superfluous documentation is probably original, heartfelt content. But these people are flat-out nuts.

The birth certificate thing hasn't gone away and will not until Mr. Obama decides to show his documents. (and not on some website - after a Photoshopping effort)

Go ahead and call me a fool, but to ME the office of the President is way too important to let some guy in it who spends 100's of thousands of dollars on legal fees, hiring three separate law firms.
Here is a list of concerns about Obama:

1. He may not be a native born citizen qualified to serve as President under Article II of the Constitution.

He admits he was born to an American mother and a British subject, suggesting dual citizenship at best. If he was not born on U.S. soil, and his mother was a minor, she was ineligible to convey US citizenship. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he was born a British Citizen. His paternal grandmother claims to have attended his birth in Kenya. Kenya memorializes his place of birth.
Issue

2. He is a suspected illegal alien for two possible reasons

At age 3, his mother and father divorced. His mother remarried and his step-father enrolled him in school in Indonesia as “Barry Soetoro.”
Issue

At age 10, after his mother’s second divorce, he reentered the US by casually and illegally assuming his birth name. Later still, he ran for and won elected office under his birth name without disclosing his legal name or his prior use of alternative names.
Issue

3. He took elected office and was admitted to the Illinois Bar under an alias

No record of any legal name change from ‘Barry Soetoro’ to ‘Barack Obama’ has ever been found.
Issue

4. He probably lost his citizenship.

An Indonesian citizen at age 6 , having been adopted by a national, he may be in the US illegally. USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state … after having attained the age of eighteen years,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship. If Obama got an Indonesian passport in 1981, when he was 20 years old, he effectively renounced any U.S. citizenship he may have had.
Issue

5. He is suspected of secretly holding a foreign passport.

When he traveled to Pakistan ‘in college’, Americans were not allowed into that country. If he traveled on an Indonesian passport in 1981 at age 20, he was and remains an Indonesian citizen.
Issue

6. He posted an illegitimate birth record to deflect questions and allegations.

The “Certification of Live Birth” shown on FightTheSmears.com is not a birth certificate, but an image of an abstract that was invalidated by alteration. As indicated on that same image, the blacked out certification number invalidates the document. Document analysis shows it to be a suspected forgery.

7. The Certification of Live Birth is a suspected forgery.

The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. However, the seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year. Document experts have analyzed other aspects and find forgery.
Issue

8. He refuses to release relevant records.

Since matters available in the public domain raise these issues, the burden rests on Obama/Soetoro to explain. He declines to release college applications, transcripts, his birth record, or addresses of where he has lived.
Issue

9. His selective service registration may be falsified.

A FOIA document shows a 2008 sequence number for a supposed 1980 registration, an incorrect date of signature, an obsolete postal stamp and other discrepancies. Did he register at age 18 like everyone else?

10. Not a single cause of action has been won by Obama on the merits.

All pending suits attempting to get Obama/Soetoro to produce simple documents have been dismissed on technical grounds such as the standing of the plaintiff. Therefore, the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States have never ruled on the merits of his citizenship.

1. “Dreams from my Father”
2. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b)
3. FightTheSmears.com admits: “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. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” However, Obama should have reaffirmed allegiance under 8 USC 1401 et seq. upon turning 18. He did not.
4. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14
; 6. AP photo Image of registration shown at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656
7. http://www.plainsradio.com/Home1/SOETORO%20DIVORCE%20P%201-5.pdf
8. 18 USC 1001: It is a federal crime punishable to lie to a federal official, which would include immigration and election.
9. The divorce decree confirms he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen.
10. Title 8 USCA 1401, 1481, & 1483
11. A new revelation made during a public campaign appearance in San Francisco in April of 2008 wherein his abilities in the arena of foreign relations was under discussion.
12. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
13. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html

Both sides are nuts. You have got the conservatives parroting conspiracy theories and you have got the liberals mindlessly defending their messiah. Both of you are deluded. Obama should end all the silly speculation and just show his documentation once and for all. The amount of time and productivity lost over the mindless arguing is dragging down the economy. The irony of all of this is when Bush was president the situation was reversed the same retards arguing for Obama's innocence where ready to crucify Bush for all manner of nonsense and the sadist Bush lovers where spinning defenses for their favorite imbecile. The only thing that matters is the constitution and as far as I am concerned neither party gives a crap about the rule of law anymore. For all of you kool aide drinkers that think Obama is going to save us think again. Both sides got us in to this mess through greed and a lack of vigilance for those that elected them. Nothing has changed or will changed until the public demands accountability and a strict adherence to the constitutional principles that made us great in the first place. The public has no one to blame but itself for this mess we have let a small group of elites take over this country now its time to pay the price for our lack of attention.

Jody says:

The birth certificate thing hasn't gone away and will not until Mr. Obama decides to show his documents. (and not on some website - after a Photoshopping effort)

I SAY:
[HE DID SHOW 'EM. DO YOU WANT HIM TO SHOW THEM TO EACH AND EVERY PERSON? SCREW YOU. HE SHOWED 'EM. THEY WERE PHOTOGRAPHED, THEN PUT ON THE INTERNET WHERE A GUY NAMED "POLARIK", AN ALIAS, SAID THEY WERE FAKE. WHO THE FUCK IS POLARIK?

Go ahead and call me a fool,[OK... YOU'RE A FOOL] but to ME the office of the President is way too important to let some guy in it who spends 100's of thousands of dollars *****[HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?]**** on legal fees, hiring three separate law firms.
Here is a list of concerns about Obama:

1. He may not be a native born citizen qualified to serve as President under Article II of the Constitution.

He admits he was born to an American mother and a British subject, suggesting dual citizenship at best. If he was not born on U.S. soil, and his mother was a minor, she was ineligible to convey US citizenship. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he was born a British Citizen. His paternal grandmother claims to have attended his birth in Kenya. Kenya memorializes his place of birth.

****[WHERE IS IT? WHY DON'T YOU SAY WHERE THAT IS?]****

***[HIS GRANDMOTHER SAID HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. SHE CLARIFIED IT WAS HIS FATHER SHE WAS SPEAKING OF.]***

2. He is a suspected illegal alien for two possible reasons

At age 3, his mother and father divorced. His mother remarried and his step-father enrolled him in school in Indonesia as “Barry Soetoro.”

***[YOU FAIL TO SAY THAT THE ENROLLMENT ALSO SHOWS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. HMMMMM. ]***

At age 10, after his mother’s second divorce, he reentered the US by casually and illegally assuming his birth name. Later still, he ran for and won elected office under his birth name without disclosing his legal name or his prior use of alternative names.
Issue

***[IF HE NEVER LEGALLY CHANGED HIS NAME TO SOETORO, NO NEED TO CHANGE IT BACK. IF HE USED THAT NAME AS A KID IN SCHOOL IN INDONESIA, WHO CARES? EXCEPT THE BIRTHERS.]***

3. He took elected office and was admitted to the Illinois Bar under an alias

No record of any legal name change from ‘Barry Soetoro’ to ‘Barack Obama’ has ever been found.

***[BECAUSE HE NEVER LEGALLY CHANGED IT TO BEGIN WITH. NO NEED.]***

4. He probably lost his citizenship.

An Indonesian citizen at age 6 , having been adopted by a national, he may be in the US illegally. USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state … after having attained the age of eighteen years,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship. If Obama got an Indonesian passport in 1981, when he was 20 years old, he effectively renounced any U.S. citizenship he may have had.
Issue
***[WHO SAID HE HAD AN INDONESIAN PASSPORT?]***

5. He is suspected of secretly holding a foreign passport.

When he traveled to Pakistan ‘in college’, Americans were not allowed into that country. If he traveled on an Indonesian passport in 1981 at age 20, he was and remains an Indonesian citizen.

***[NOT TRUE. OUR OWN STATE DEPT. ISSUED A NOTICE ON AUG 17, 1981 THAT SAID "BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLO[WING] UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS: 30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS [FOR] TOURISTS ONLY. " YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PDF. A LINK IS PROVIDED HERE:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-traveled-to-pakistan-on-an-indonesian-passport/

IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO BAN.]***

6. He posted an illegitimate birth record to deflect questions and allegations.

The “Certification of Live Birth” shown on FightTheSmears.com is not a birth certificate, but an image of an abstract that was invalidated by alteration. As indicated on that same image, the blacked out certification number invalidates the document. Document analysis shows it to be a suspected forgery.
***[SO SAYS THE GUY WHO WON'T GIVE HIS REAL NAME? OR A GUY NAMED TECHDUDE? OR LINES, WHO SAID ONLY THAT A JPG IMAGE COULD NOT VERIFY. OF COURSE IT COULDN'T. AND, DR. NEAL KRAWETZ DISPUTES POLARIKS REPORT. HIS CREDENTIALS ARE ONLINE. ]***

7. The Certification of Live Birth is a suspected forgery.

The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. However, the seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year. Document experts have analyzed other aspects and find forgery.

[POLARIK HAS CHANGED HIS NAME, AND HIS CREDENTIALS. HOW CAN AN AFFAVADIT BE ACCEPTED WHEN HE WON'T EVEN GIVE THAT?

AS FOR THE ANALYSIS, IT'S BEEN DEBUNKED BY NEAL KRAWETZ. YOU CAN SEE IT HERE, ALONG WITH HIS CREDENTIALS.
http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html
]

8. He refuses to release relevant records.

Since matters available in the public domain raise these issues, the burden rests on Obama/Soetoro to explain. He declines to release college applications, transcripts, his birth record, or addresses of where he has lived.

***[I'M PRETTY SURE OTHERS DIDN'T EITHER. DID WE SEE PALIN'S MEDICAL RECORDS? HER COLLEGE APPLICATIONS? HOW ABOUT MCCAIN'S. BUSH'S? NO? WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? AND GEE... YOU BIRTHER'S SAY IF HE'D ONLY RELEASE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. BUT NOW YOU WANT ALL THIS OTHER STUFF, AS WELL AS PROOF HIS MOM DIED? SOME THINK SHE'S STILL ALIVE. SOME SAY HIS GRANDMOTHER IS STILL ALIVE? YOU FOLKS ARE NUTS.]***

9. His selective service registration may be falsified.

A FOIA document shows a 2008 sequence number for a supposed 1980 registration, an incorrect date of signature, an obsolete postal stamp and other discrepancies. Did he register at age 18 like everyone else?

***[HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO. HE DID WHEN THE REQUIREMENT WAS REINSTATED. DID YOU RESEARCH AT ALL. YEAH... ON THE BIRTHER SITES.

AS FOR THE OBSOLETE POSTAL STAMP. IT'S STILL BEING USED. HERE'S ONE EXAMPLE I FOUND:

http://picasaweb.google.com/timeinstein/FolderXVIIIStatementOfCognizanceIIAJuly1988August2007#5145782807530239138

FOR THE REST OF THE REBUTTLE, SEE OBAMACONSPIRACY.ORG. ]***

10. Not a single cause of action has been won by Obama on the merits.

All pending suits attempting to get Obama/Soetoro to produce simple documents have been dismissed on technical grounds such as the standing of the plaintiff. Therefore, the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States have never ruled on the merits of his citizenship.

***[THEY HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE WITHOUT MERIT]***

YOU BIRTHERS ARE NUTS!

The short form COLB posted on a web site proves nothing.

Who was the Dr. (or health care professional) that delivered him? Link to the info?

What hospital was he born in? Link to the info?

The Hawaiian govt' officials NEVER stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They only stated that they have seen his birth certificate on file. But a B.C. from where??

On October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health:
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

Examples of Hawaiian Long Form COLB's:
1963 Hawaiian Long Form COLB:
http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2252293c4604a0100a80270e5000e-pi
1962 Hawaiian Long Form COLB:
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
And one from the late 70's:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/HawaiinBirthCertificate.jpg

Obviously, what the Obama camp has released looks nothing like those two Hawaiian COLB's from that time. Where's his?

How about a Hawaiian short form COLB for a famous Chinese leader, born in China?
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SunYatSen.jpg
Info about Sun Yat Sen: http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/sun_yat_sen1.html

then there is the dual citizenship issue (which could make the above totally irrelevant). Factcheck themselves state that Obama was indeed a British subject and did in fact hold dual citizenship AT Birth.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
"In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen ... and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC)"

It is doubtful that the framers intended someone who had foreign citizenship AT birth and who had a foreign national father (who was never a U.S.) citizen, to be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

This will be something SCOTUS will need to determine.

This issue is only getting bigger and with more attention.

Janet Barnes - You are being unreasonable. You expect Obama to pass his birth certificate aroudn to 300 million people. That's not just unreasonable.

That's insane.

Obama met the requirements of fifty different state election organizations. For this crap to be anywhere near true, all fifty organizations would have to be in on the conspiracy. Remember, a fair number of them are REpublican, not to mention the Hawaii State Department of Public HEalth.

The SCOTUS would ahve to be in on the conspiracy as well as both houses of the US Congress.

It's an insane conspiracy theory.

Xyxox,

I have been watching this thread since it started. The only one acting insane is you. You have been shouting down people for almost 24 hours straight. You don't even bother to offer logical argument to what is being said you simply parrot back the nonsense you have read else where. Obama is now the most powerful man on earth. He doesn't need your imbecilic help. Your only egging these people on.

I absolutely hate unresolved issues, and this is one mother of an unresolved issue! Let's get to the bottom of it, for everyone's sake. To anyone who says that Factcheck and snopes have resolved all of this, you are dreaming and misleading. And, the next person to use the "tinfoil hat" cliche is going to make me throw my laptop. Come up with something original, please...most of you probably don't even know where the reference comes from.

Wow, such ignorance of the constitution.

Scalia doesn't believe in judges evolving law through the common law process today, however, no one looks to the English common law at the time of the founding more to understand the original meaning of the constitution more. Have you not read his decisions. Look at Heller, to determine the original meaning, Scalia relied on the common law, the early commentators like Tucker, Rawle, Story etc. and early case law.

If he looked at such sources with respect to "natrual born citizen", the common law, all the important commentators and early case law make very clear that birth alone (with limited exceptions) was what the terms were understood to mean. Birthers really should really read Tucker, Kent, Rawle, Bouvier, Paschal, Bates, Lynch v. Clark and all the other authority that contradicts their claims before making statements. In fact, I'm not sure I have seen one source prior to reconstruction that brought up anything about the citizenship of parents, Vattel's foreign law views, duel citizenship or any other such nonsense raised on the internet. Tell Scalia these the leading scholar of the post-founding period didn't get the memo.

Is anyone really serious that a single statement by a congressmand 75 years after the founding has any weight in determining the original meaning, particularly when another congressman in the same debate contradicted him in clearer terms and citing authority?

Finally, please stop trying to claim cherry picked dicta from supreme court cases long after the founding is authoritative, particilarly where they offer no support for an assertion or use "natural born" in passing.

"If he looked at such sources with respect to "natrual born citizen", the common law, all the important commentators and early case law make very clear that birth alone (with limited exceptions) was what the terms were understood to mean."

Not so.

If that were indeed true, there would be zero reason to stipulate "Natural Born Citizen." They specifically put that clause in there to differentiate from "Citizen." If birth on U.S. soil alone is enough to be NBC, then anchor baby's are NBC as would be any baby born here to visiting foreigner's. No way that was the intent. Again, they would have only said one need to be Citizen if that were their intent.

In addition, British Common law (see Blackstone) gives definition regarding "Natural Born Subjects." Subjects...NOT Citizens. If your going to cite British Common law, you should state that difference. Being a Subject (of a King or Queen) is FAR different than being a Citizen (of a Constitutional Republic). Furthermore, in British Common Law, Subjects get their 'rights' by way of man's law. In Natural Law (see Vattel for 1 example), Citizens get their 'rights' NOT by means of man's law, but rather, 'naturally.' Major difference.

Perhaps by 'Common Law' (as in, the common law, but NOT British Common law) you were referring to this (see plural parents):

MINOR v HAPPERSETT.
“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 citizen”
Cases on Constitutional Law By James Bradley Thayer (1895)

The deffinition for "Natural Born Citizen" (again...not NBS or Subject like in British Common Law) was well known at the time. They didn't need to 'spell it out', just like they didn't need to define what they meant by 'Resident', as in "and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Today, we know that a resident can include a Resident illegal alien. Did they intend that definition? Very doubtfull as a resident illegal alien isn't a citizen of ANY kind.

Keep in mind that Vattel was NOT the first to come up with the notion of 'Law of Nations.' His book, translated into English, was the source of Law of Nations that the framers were most familiar with.

During the 1700's:

"Natural Born Citizen"
Law of Nations BOOK I, CHAP. XIX (Vattel)
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Clearly defined, NO ambiguity: "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

References by the framers to this book, are numerous. I'll post only a few to keep this already lenghty post shortened:

The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 2
Franklin to Dumas
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idée sur le Gouvernement et la Royauté," is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Exposé de ce qui est passé entre la Cour Britanique et les Colonies," etc., being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_hkw9::

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]
KING Wednesday 27. June
"Our Reform must be federal--The States are equal & must have equal Influence and equal votes--I will proceed on first principls. every man out of society is equal, in Freedom, & every other quality of man--Lock, Vattel, & others prove this position"
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:7:./temp/~ammem_hkw9::

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]
YATES Wednesday, June 27th, 1787.
"The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle...Vattel, Rutherford and Locke, are united in support of the position, that states, as to each other, are in a state of nature.

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 8 September 19, 1777 - January 31, 1778
James Lovell to John Adams
"We have had a call for your Stores of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel &c &c &c to support reason & common sense or to destroy both, just as your Honour & Da & Du & Dy should interpret the text."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:11:./temp/~ammem_hkw9::

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 16 September 1, 1780 - February 28, 1781
James Madison to Joseph Jones
"The inclosed letters (4) were found between the pages of Vattel."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:16:./temp/~ammem_hkw9::

rxsid,

Sorry, not very persausive.

You say, "They specifically put that clause in there to differentiate from "Citizen."

Sorry, you provide no evidence of this.

You say, "Subjects...NOT Citizens. If your going to cite British Common law, you should state that difference."

Sorry, citizen and subject were generally conflated and natural born citizen was understood in the same manner as natural born subject. For example:

"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land." James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

Minor v. Happersett did not say that children of aliens were not natural born citizens, it said there was some doubt, didn't address the doubt and gave no authority to back such claim. It really says nothing and is dicta anyway. Not persuasive and actually just wrong. Find me an authority from the founding period or the decades following that says children of aliens were not natural born citizens under the common law.

You say, "The deffinition for "Natural Born Citizen" (again...not NBS or Subject like in British Common Law) was well known at the time."

Yes, it was well know to be derivative to natural born subject under British common law. Please show me someone in America at the time of the founding and the decades after saying otherwise.

You can point out that Vattel was an influence the founders all you want, that doesn't mean that they used his works to define terms rather than the British common law they grew up under. Vattel himself made clear that his rule did not apply in England and the term "natural-born" was not even in the first english transaction of his work. Please show me who at the time of the founding or the decades following used "natural born" in the sense of Vattel rather than Blackstone.

Sorry Tom. Your commentary is not pursuasive.

I've specifically provided a verbatim definition for Natural Born Citizen from that time period in which they wrote the Constition. A definition from an author they referenced over and over again.

You have not provided a verbatim definition from that time, only your opinion. Nor one that was referenced over and over again by the framers.

rxsid,

So your argument is that since they cited Vattel on other things, they must have meant his definition of "natural born." Great arguement, I guess then every other term in the constitution should be defined by Vattel.

Obviously you can't find anyone from the period using "natural born" in Vattel's sense while pretty much every early commentator used it the Blackstone sense. What do Tucker, Kent, Rawle, et al know, they only lived through the period and were the leading constitutional scholars of the period.

You can try to say Blackstone's definition is not verbatim if you want, but no early commentators agreement with you.

Buzz, yes, that's right. Putin or Chavez could impregnate a woman in the U.S. and that child would be eligible for the Presidency. Andrew Jackson, for one, was born on U.S. soil to non-Americans. Obama is a natural born citizen by the fact he was born in Hawaii. All of that other stuff about mother having to have lived in the country for five years after the age of 16 is only applicable if Barack was not born in the U.S. He was. Case closed.

"Obama is a natural born citizen by the fact he was born in Hawaii"

Where's the proof? The short form COLB posted on some web site? What hospital was he born in? Who was the delivering Dr?

All that talk is beside the main point.

He could never be NBC even if he were born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in D.C. itself. Just as if an anchor baby was born on the White House lawn...that baby isn't considered NBC.

Barry had Foreign citizenship at birth.
Barry's father was a foreign national who never had citizenship.

Case close.

There are more people finally waking up to this fraud. As much as you really really really wish it would go away, it won't and it's only gaining momentum. The truth will be known (unless of course he steps down beforehand).

Have a nice one.

You guys can continue to propigate this urban legend all you want. Yes, it's obviously gaining momentum in the paranoid right-wing blogosphere and among Art Bell listeners. No doubt about that. But it's not gaining momentum among the people who would decide, namely the legal community.

And BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (caps intended) because HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. A baby born in Tennessee to illegal immigrant parents can be the President. You can argue with that until your blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. Obama will be President until a) he is term limited; b) he is not reelected or c) he dies in office. There is a 0% chance he will be found unqualified. Absolutely 0%.

"You look pretty stupid with the comments you've made, considering most of America (those who are awake) know all about the attempts of Obama to seal off access to all his records."

you mean most of America that voted for and support Obama? His last press conference outdrew American Idiol(37.5 to 30.1 mil), his Lincoln day address was cheered by both parties, is that what you maen? You mean the one that enjoys high support from Americans, that one?

"Now, C'mon Jeff, you must be a reasonably intelligent guy--why would Obama do such a thing if he had nothing to hide. Think reeal hard now. Yep, you got it--Obama has a lot to hide!"

neat Birher talking point, false but neat for the dummies, now call us when you have a court case that doesn't fail, good luck!

RachelBeth wrote: "His right to privacy is not reasonable in this case!"

He has no obligation to provide extraordinary evidence for every lunatic who files a lawsuit.

The facts as presented are sufficient. The COLB is legally sufficient. The newspaper birth notices support the birth in Hawaii.

If you're going to claim otherwise, you're suggesting that Obama's parents submitted fraudulent birth notices in 1961, on the off chance that their son might someday seek the Presidency.

That is simply insane. Anyone who would go to that length of illogic is not going to be satisfied by any evidence whatsoever. So there's no point bothering to satisfy them.

There's a guy (David Icke) who thinks the world leaders are shapeshifting reptiles. Should Clinton, Bush, Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Queen Elizabeth and everyone else be required to produce evidence that they aren't shapeshifting reptiles?

VMA224 Here is where it defines a natural born citizen as... both parents are to be US citizens and do not owe any allegiance to another country. BTW this dates back to 1866 so read it and weep!

an exerpt from the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John Bingham

John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:”[4]

“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…. . . ”

Obama is a natural born citizen!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the website that has all the proofs that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FAQ ON

BARACK OBAMA’S

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Last updated January 21, 2009

This is where you start if you want a heads up on what this Obama citizenship issue is all about.

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth

Obama's father was British!

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother?

After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen?

This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

Three requisites, all of which must concur, for Natural Born Citizenship, eligible for President of the U.S.:

1. Father must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born)

and

2. Mother must be US Citizen (either Naturalized or Natural Born)

and

3. Must be born in US soil

Barack's father was British.. therefore................................

Two Scenarios for Barack

Scenario One: Barack was born in Kenya to a US citizen mother who was less than 19 years old and a father who was not a US citizen.

Status: Then Obama is NOT even a U.S. citizen at all, according to the law existing in 1961 his year of birth.

Scenario Two: Barack was born in Hawaii but his father was British anyway.

Status: Then Barack is a Citizen but NOT a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the US Constitution, law, and jurisprudence.

Question:

Granting that Obama was born in Honolulu, as he claimed, in which hospital was he born?

Answer:

Nobody is certain as to what hospital Obama was born.

First Answer: Queen’s Medical Center Honolulu

Source: Obama’a own half-sister Maya Soetoro (in 2004)

Charter School’s The Rainbow Edition Newsletter, Vol 2. Issue 3, November 2004 written by Bennett Guira, a colleague of Maya Soetoro.

Barack Obama was born on August 4,

1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in

Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama lived here with his

parents Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham

until they divorced when he was two. Obama

moved back to Hawaii when he was ten and

lived with his grandmother Madelyn Dunham

and half-sister of our very own, Maya Soetoro.

They both attended Punahou School together

when they both lived here.

Ms. Soetoro explained, “He’s my

brother. We share the same mother, though our

fathers are different. His father was Barack

Obama Sr., a Kenyan economist who met our

mother at the East West Center. My father was

our mother’s second husband after she divorced

Obama. Soetoro was from Indonesia and in the

late 1960s the family moved to the island of

Java where I was born.”

Click on this link to get a copy of the newsletter.

Second answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

Second Answer: Kapiolani Medical Center

Source: Maya Soetoro (Obama’s half-sister); fours after the Rainbow interview

On Febuary 18, 2008, in Vol. 13, Issue 49 of Star Bulletin, in an article by Laurie Au:

Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who has been

campaigning aggressively in Hawaii and on the mainland,

shared stories of her older brother's childhood as a way to

connect to local voters.

"This is a place that's been relatively unchanged for him, and so

much of who he is was born here," Soetoro-Ng told a crowd of

about 200 people eating "OBAMAsadas."

"He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women &

Children, two blocks up from where our grandmother still

resides ... the place where he used to stick orange peels under

his bed, where it got all dried out and ... nasty."

Click on this link to get a copy of the news item.

What is the real answer? Nobody knows for sure because this name of hospital is not found in the SHORT-FORM but only in the LONG-FORM.

The SHORT-FORM is not the mate proof of birth or citizenship. To settle this, Obama will have give his LONG-FORM.

But so far he has refused to do so.

correction: "those questions are never answered"

But Barack Obama has shown his birth certificate?

No, he has not. He has not shown it in a legal proceeding nor to any official of the government.

You cannot just say, “Your Honor, please visit my allied website, there’s my edited, fake, certification, not certificate, of live birth.”

Obama doesn't have to present to every citizen in the US his own copy. He only needs to show it, in closed door proceedings, to a competent court or authority who can legally confirm that he has legally complied with the legally required Natural Born Citizenship.

What he has given to websites are scanned copies of his SHORT FORM which is computer generated. That is not a birth certificate.

He has not even shown the embossed with official seal paper copy of the computer generated SHORT FORM to the public or the press to physically inspect.

He has only given it to website that are sympathetic to him.

There has been questions as to the authenticity of the scanned copies of the SHORT FORM because it has been shown to be doctored or photoshopped.

It has been assailed to be a forgery as well. Click on this URL.

Besides, a SHORT FORM is not enough to establish citizenship specially when Obama’s citizenship is questioned.

The best evidence is the LONG FORM showing exactly what hospital and in what city or country Obama was born.

Who has the burden of proof of citizenship?

The person who positively claims such qualification of Natural Born Citizenship required for the position of the President of the US has the burden of proof that he qualifies.

The evidence needed is not the secondary evidence (the SHORT FORM certification which is merely computer generated) but the actual Certificate of Live Birth typed in 1961 and signed by the doctor, the parents, the registrar and shows the weight date hospital and all circumstances of birth.

Citizenship is a judicial issue. It is not within the power of the Health officials or clerks to determined whether or not Barack is a citizen. The agency’s functions are merely ministerial.

To prove citizenship, therefore, requires no less than the source document, the primary source, the conclusive proof of birth which is the LONG FORM.

Is there a difference between “Certificate” and Certification” of Live Birth?

The computer-generated “Certification” is classified as a secondary evidence whose legal probative value can be challenged by procuring the source of the information which is the “Certificate” typewritten in 1961 which, according to the Rules of Evidence is the primary evidence, and therefore has legal probative value that is the “best evidence” following the “best evidence rule.”

In Hawaii, a “Certificate” of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a “Certification” of Live Birth.

For births prior to 1972, a Certification of Live Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.

The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii.

Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy of the original vault Copy.

"But the Hawaii Director of Health has confirmed that Obama’s original birth certificate is with them! So that’s the end of it!!!"

Think like a lawyer.

Focus on what the Health Director is saying, and also on what she is NOT saying.

Here’s the statement:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other.

Having read the above, notice:

1. Fukino is NOT stating that the original birth certificate is a US birth certificate.

2. Fukino is NOT stating that is not a Kenyan birth certificate.

3. Fukino is only stating that a birth certificate (which could be Kenyan) is filed in accordance with the rules.

4. Fukino is NOT saying that Obama’s record is not filed according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

5. Fukino’s statement, therefore, does not rule out that Obama could have a Kenyan birth certificate but still filed according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 that allows “registration” of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

6. Fukino’s statement, also does not rule out registration of birth of a child born outside the US but registered in Hawaii.

That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.

That brief comment does not affirm whether the birth certificate in the “record” is a Certification of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

In Hawaii, a “Certificate” of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a “Certification” of Live Birth.

For births prior to 1972, a Certification of Live Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.

The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy of the original vault Copy.

Where are Woordward and Bernstein?

Any student of law, and a student of investigative journalism should be curious: who is the doctor that delivered Obama, in what hospital, at what time, and what was his weight, and who of his parents signed the birth certificate? This is from the LONG FORM, not the computer generated SHORT FORM.

"We're not going away.
Too bad.
Arrivederci."

good for you, now call us when you have a case that doesn't fail!

Do you want to be part of

American history?

1. Who is that one person (a judge, a secretary of state, or any government official) who will go down in US history as the one who finally compelled Barack Obama to show legally acceptable proof and evidence that he is a natural born citizen as he alleged in his application form for his candidacy for the position of President of the United States? Or do you simply take Obama at his word? Is this what the rule of law is about?

2. And who is that investigative journalist who could finally discover and present the copy the actual birth certificate of Barack Obama?

3. And who is that US government worker whistleblower who will be courageous enough to face a possible legal suit for violating privacy laws by coming out in the open, if indeed Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, to prove that Obama has perpetrated fraud on the entire American nation by falsely claiming he is a natural born citizen when he is not? (Somebody in the government, at least in Hawaii, must have actually seen Obama’s 1961 typewritten birth certificate if there is one, or alternatively can testify that there isn’t one, or if there is one from a foreign nation. And anyway, coming out to prevent fraud would likely give him immunity from a suit based on privacy laws. The constitution trumps any privacy law any day.)

This is your chance to be etched in the history books for the next 500 years.

This is a legitimate legal issue that needs to be settled once and for all by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). But instead of a trial on the merits, the courts have raised technical issues of proper standing of the plaintiffs. For the lawyers out there, be aware that so far there has been no trial on the merits regarding Obama’s citizenship. If a citizen has no standing to protect the Constitution, then who has?

What is the big furor over these fine representatives? They are working for the "citizens" who elected them. Unlike other elected officials, who once they obtain the office they were elected to, they chose not to follow blindly. I am tired of elected officials campaigning with all sorts of promises to be the voice of the people, only to become the voice of big government.

Let's just see the documents, if there is nothing to hide or nothing damaging, what's the problem???? Obama can put this to rest, or he can continue feeding the "conspiracy". Actions speak louder than words, and his actions thus far label him as a dishonest and dangerous character.

Who was the doctor attending the delivery of our Obamasiah? We could just ask him where Obama was born. Which hospital was he born in? Do Hawaiian hospitals keep records like that? If they do, then there should be one for BHO or somebody who had a different name at the time and later became BHO. It is so god damned simple!!! We don't give a s__t about the stupid, fake COLB. We want to see the real, doctor signed, original copy of the real, long form birth certificate. GOT IT? You stupid F_____G liberal, self-hating-White, and Black racist morons. SIMPLE. EASY. FINAL. NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES. JUST THE DOCUMENTED FACTS FROM GOVERNMENT RECORDS. I don't CARE if it starts a race war! The Supreme Cowards (Court), and those two august bodies of cowards and traitors (House and Senate) need to carry out their duties and finally ask the questions that should have been asked last Fall. (I suppose that doping by baseball players is more important to them than constitutional eligibility of the President of the United States.) America is too stupid and cowardly to continue. At least 52% at least are too stupid to live and the other 48% lacks the guts to put the 52% out of it's (and our) collective misery.

The only conspiracy here is the one being used to keep Obama's great lie(s) secret.

Disgusting!!!!

For the Non-Believers and the doubters...you know the ones writing:
I can't believe this is still going on.

This is the problem with Erosionists (liberals, progressives, socialists, Republican'ts, Democrats, ObaMorons, etc) they have a hard time believing REALITY and COMOM SENSE they are too used to having no one Question them. Well news for you IT IS HAPPENING, therefore BELIEVE IT.

Those Erosionists in doubt just think of these two things:

1- "obama" (may not be his LEGAL name) traveled a few times in his life to foreign countries prior to 2006 BUT his first USA passport was aquired in 2006 when elected to the Senate he got a diplomats passport with not much background checking done. Now how did he travel Prior to 2006? What name did he use and/or what countries' passports?

2- The TRANSPARENCY & CHANGE president has erected a "dark" wall hiding all his documents and records. WHY? If he didn't have anything to Hide why is he working so hard and spending so much money to Hide Everything?
He has spend about $1,000,000.00 to Hide a document that can easily be acquired for $20.00 WHY? If he is such smart man why spend $1,000,000 defending over 100 lawsuits, about half at the Supreme Court, when he could easily spend $20 and have it all go away? What is he Hiding? Everyone that works for the Prex has to show Documents is he above the law?

COMMON SENSE & TRUTH WILL PREVAIL. It is best to Err on the side of Caution. Trust but Verify. If he is qualified no harm no fault BUT if he is not we may have averted a Constitutional Catastrophe. Our ancestors didn't work so hard to give us something great to have use let it Erode under our watch. We owe it to future generations to be dilligent an do our part.

In the era of Identity Theft, Bernie Madoof, Clark Rockerfeller, etc. We need to be EXTRA VIGILANT you can't fly without being properly vetted. The prez is not ABOVE THE LAW.
NO DOCS NO BAMA

If this makes you think and you want to be more informed at least check out this site on the Constitution and most of the near 100 Lawsuits to get to the Truth:

www.cusc.org

It is a great place to start getting informed because the Erosionist Media are willing Accomplices in the PONZI PREZ the greatest Fraud perpetrated on America and The Constitution.

God Bless US

http://www.historynet.com/peter-francisco-american-revolutionary-war-hero.htm

Why would a man spend close to one million dollars to lawyers to have his birth records sealed if he had nothing to hide? You koolaide drinkers amaze me!

If Obama WAS born in the U.S., he should simply produce his birth certificate and be done with all this silliness.

If he won't/can't, then there's a serious red flag here.

We have something called the Constitution in this Country; it is the law of our land. Without the Constitution, we have no Country! I find it unconscionable that our lawmakers, the Congress, seem to be ignorant of the Constitution. They seem to be of the opinion that candidates need only to be born on the US mainland to qualify for the Presidency. That is the definition of a Native Born Citizen. Natural Born Citizenship requires both parents to be US citizens and to be born on the US mainland. The founding fathers were very protective of our hard won liberty. They wanted the Presidency to be available to the children of citizens (mother and father) to protect our country from outside takeover (dual alliances or usurpers) and to perpetuate the Country, its laws and freedoms. An immigrant who becomes a naturalized citizen then bestows Natural Born Citizenship on his children. In this day and age the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen requirement is more important than ever due to the multi-cultural nature of the world. This is not about political parties; it is about preserving our laws by Properly vetting our Presidential candidates. Look at Europe, its entire face has changed. Soon France will not be French, or England English, etc. I for one want the US to remain the US, with its liberties and laws intact. Senator McCain was publically vetted when his Natural Born Citizen status was in question, Obama was never publically vetted and out right refuses to be. This double standard leaves a large segment of the American public uneasy and suspicious. Are our laws still intact? On the face of things, Obama is ineligible as he has only 1 American citizen parent, he might be a citizen (he still needs to prove it), just ineligible to be President by the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. If it makes anyone feel any better Governor Bobby Jindal is also ineligible. I am an American citizen and I will use my voice while it is still possible, as allowed by the Constitution, and I will not be discounted with any of the conspiracy theory labels. We still have the right to question our Government! If we still have laws then President Obama should not above the law. I'll leave you with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. It puts the burden on those who deny it.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
"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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

I have been following this issue from the beginning and I agree with some that no one running for public office (especially POTUS) should be allowed to seal any records that show fitness for the post. I believe his college records would indicate he was enrolled as a foreign student (my personal opinion). Until history proves this case one way or another I can only say this; based on his actions during the first six months of his presidency, he is obviously not qualified.

Would anyone on this blog hire a nanny without seeing their resume'? I don't think so. No one has seen this mans resume'. I can't understand how he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, the U.S. Senate or even been allowed to run for POTUS.