Monday, July 27, 2009
We have not written much here about the "the birthers," the conspiracy theorists who claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen and therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States (the Constitution requiring as it does a "natural born citizen"). It is a silly story, and no conservative of any stature subscribes to it (unlike, for example, the fairly prominent and putatively respectable people on the left who denied Trig Palin's maternity). The persistence of the story in the media seems more like a strategy to discredit conservatives by associating them with cranks than a real effort to get to the bottom of the theory. See, e.g., Ann Coulter and Mike Huckabee mock the birthers below, and the lefty on the panel saying that he hopes the story has legs:
It is a silly story, and no conservative of any stature subscribes to it
Really? What about Sen. Richard Shelby who's on the record saying "they say he was born in Hawaii but I haven't seen his birth certificate" (which of course begs the question whether he saw Bush's birth certificate") or Rush Limbaugh ("what do God and Obama have in common? Neither has a birth certificate), or Lou Dobbs, or Liz Cheney or the 10 House Republicans who introduced a bill requiring presidential candidates to provide original copies of their birth certificates?
Whether or not they actually subscribe to the theory as you claim, they sure are doing a heck of a job fanning the flames of doubt. Heck, I've seen claims of the same here by some of your commenters. So be careful who you call silly:)
Coulter says the Birther Movement is "just a few cranks out there."
Hoo boy! Coulter just called Limbaugh a crank. Cat fight in aisle 3.
BTW, the McCain campign investigated the birther movement extensively, too.
If the Constitution requires that the candidate be a natural born citizen, where is the disdain for proving it?
I am assuming here that, somewhere along the line, candidates have to show up somewhere with a birth certificate? Right?
I am also assuming that Obama did just that...as did McCain.
That did not prevent an organized group of LEFT WING loons from trying to
discredit McCain's birth history.
The Volokh Conspiracy posted on this during the election. They argued that "natural born citizen" does not mean "born in the United States." Here's the link if you're interested: http://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml
I think the Snopes write-up does the job of disposing with this nicely, as do any number of bloggers. Limbaugh, nearly as I can tell, has been joking, although no doubt knowing that he is fanning flames of the birthers (lefties do this all the time, too, so there is nothing unusual in it as a tactic among partisan gum-flappers). Dobbs is a total nut, so I'm not sure citing him does much good.
The newspaper announcement does demolish the most extreme theories. But under Hawaii law now, and I think at the time, a Hawaiian birth certificate was easily obtainable for a born-abroad child of a Hawaiian. The scenario is highly plausible that Obama was in fact born abroad and brought back to Hawaii as an infant.
Should this disqualify him? As a matter of common sense, of course not. As a legal matter, it would depend on the convoluted and changing laws of citizenship, and a child born abroad to a minor mother with a non-citizen father may in fact not be a U.S. citizen, however unfair this outcome. (And it would indeed be ridiculous for him to be a citizen if born in Kenya to an 18 year old mother, but not if she was 17.)
So it would make sense for Obama to resist revealing a birth certificate that would plunge him into this legal tangle. My legal judgment is that he would win; courts would rule him a natural-born citizen for Constitutional purposes because the 17/18 year-old mother distinction is not tenable in this context. But that does not make the people who say the tangle exists crazy.
It is also entirely possible that he claimed other citizenship at times when it was to his advantage, but that, however embarrassing, would not affect the basic issue. A renunciation must be pretty unequivocal.
But I don't scoff at the birthers. I scoffed at the idea that the President of the U.S. would order the bugging of a psychiatrist's office, and at the possibility that news reporters were indifferent to the truth of Tet. I learned my lesson. It is fair to ask why Obama has not laid this issue to rest, and conclude that he has a reason.
For him to be disqualified on a technicality would be ironic justice, considering how he systematically disqualified his opponents in one race after another right up to the Senate.
Well, yes, but...
There is no question he is hiding SOMETHING! There's no medical records, no school transcripts, no accounting for who paid his tuition and no birth certificate, among other things.
You wouldn't let your kid overnight where the father was as secretive. What is he hiding? Could be he is foreign born; could be that he didn't make the 14 year residency because he qualified for scholarships by claiming status as a foreigner. Whatever, but he is HIDING SOMETHING and that something is big enough in his mind and the minds of his owners, that he is still in cover up mode.
Goodness Tigerhawk, what have you unleashed among your "silly" readership? Seems the persistence by the right is keeping this story alive as much as you claim the media is.
To wit: Senator Inhofe lending support to the birthers, “They have a point,” he said of the birthers. “I don’t discourage it. ... "
This seems like the classic Left-Wing "change the story line" ploy.
The issue becomes whether US citizens who wonder about their President's shrouded background are "silly", instead of why does the US President not simply put an end to this by releasing all the details of his past -- birth certificate, transcripts, scholarship records.
As long as Obama refuses to come clean, there is no reason for a Tigerhawk to become an apologist (or worse, an attack dog) for an unforthcoming elected official.
Rule of Law.
To uphold the Rule of Law is silly. Yeh, that is what silly conservatives do.
If this little point is not satisfied, then you have a lawbreaker as Chief Executive that raises his right hand and swears to "Uphold the Constitution", is so much hypocrisy. Our leaders are to be hypocritical?
I'm a soldier. I am told to go into battle and risk my life. I am to be obedient. And to see other Americans disregard the law, the highest law of the land, undermines everything Western Civilization is about. We are to look the other way? This is a slap in the face of every soldier. We are told to obey to our deaths, while our political and media leaders, who have never served, give out passes and don't obey nothing.
If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
The Rule of Law starts with the little. If you can't obey the tittle, how can you obey the larger? If one is disobedient in the small, he will be disobedient in the larger and his oath means nothing. And that means the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper.
If the man can't prove where he was born and be legitimate, he has no business in the office of President.
Shame on you.
Refuses to come clean? What are you missing
He's produced an original birth certificate, statements from the Hawaii Board of Health, the Governor of Hawaii, and the birth notice published in the Honolulu newspaper 9 days after he was born, which was submitted to the newspaper by dep't of health routinely for all babies born in the city. How many of those items do you have to prove your birth??? How do we know you weren't born in Canada and slipped over the border days later so that you could run for President, too. How's that dream working for you?
Dozens of reporters, officilas, and agents for presidential wannabees from both sides of the aisles have poured over the records, and have confirmed his birth certificate is legit. What else do you need? Other than some "high quality tinfoil" for your hat??
Brendan Nyhan rounds up other conservatives supporting this idea.
If you get a free pass on Lou Dobbs because he's a total nut, then I can give the same to Andrew Sullivan. So who else was promoting the Trig Palin story? The Huffington Post, I guess -- I'll give you that. But it seemed like less.
By Hawaiian law, one has to be 21 years of age to pass on citizenship to your child. Ann Durham, a freakin communist, whose first thing is find some African to screw, was 17 or 18 at the time of the birth making her son inelligible for natural citizenship if born outside the country.
His mom is a communist. He is a communist---and he needs to go. What better way than disqualification.
And the "Media" that are supposed to be our defenders of the republic and our liberties????? It seems that the "Media" is busy covering up. The Media is busy blowing smoke. The Media, like everything else, is betraying us, the country and the constitution.
Backstabbers. "The Stab in the Back" is going to be the label of the media and politicians. Betrayal is the game of the day. All things are in betrayal.
That's a pretty foul way to talk about a woman, WLindsayWheeler.
I don't think individual States get to decide how American citizenship gets passed on to children. I'd sure love to see a cite on that one.
"Salus populi, lex suprema". A proverb from the Roman Republic: "The health (salvation) of the people is the supreme law of the land. How pray tell is miscegenation "salus populi"? She is a traitor herself.
If she earns the scarlet letter---so be it. America allows foul things to occur, there is no other way to describe it.
And this is not the first nor the paradigm. Notice European women who become communist? They hate their own kind. That is what Marxism (political correctness) teaches.
Ever hear of Jessica Mitford? Jessica Mitford is the mentor of J. K. Rowling of the Harry Potter series. Jessica Mitford rejected her aristocratical heritage: "renounced her privileged background at an early age and became an adherent of communism" (from Wikipedia)
So what does her communist daughter do? Goes out and marries a blackman. When a woman becomes a leftist---she screws Africans or better flies to foreign countries, like Madonna and Jolie, and adopt black babies. You can see that throughout America.
America is the Land of Freaks.
I had hoped these issues surrounding Obama's and McCain's births would have helped clarify what exactly is meant by "natural born citizen" for the purposes of becoming president, yet there still seems little consensus.
McCain was born in Panama, but both his parents were American citizens. I believe a legal decision was reached that determined this did not disqualify him.
What if someone where born outside of the U.S. to only one parent of American citizenship? Assuming the birth is properly reported and the child is immediately granted citizenship by the American authorities, does that not make him a "natural born citizen"? If so, the Obama question is moot.
I think everyone agrees, however, that having no American parentage and being born outside of the country is disqualifying, such as in Governer Schwarzenegger's case.
what exactly is meant by "natural born citizen" for the purposes of becoming president,
To me, it means those who are "citizens of the United States at birth" and the law addresses this. I've got citations in a comment at an old TH post here; read through the whole thread there for other info.
Well, it gets more disgusting. Jerome Corsi has come out with another article with a timeline in it---with almost impossible dates of actions. Two months after the birth, Ann Dunham goes to Seattle. Barack Sr. stays in Hawaii, and a year later goes to Harvard.
Is this not dysfunctional? Is this not the height of weirdness?
It gets even better. According to the babysitter, Ann told her that Mr. Senoir had to go to Africa and marry a PURE BRED from his tribe. No, screws another race in America, gets her pregnant, and then goes to Africa and marrys another purebred.
What? Am I living in the Land of Oz? What kind of gobbleygook is this?
Corsi's Article: New Doubts.
[quote]"The alleged requirement is for the mother to be a US Citizen for at least five years after her 14th birthday, or 19 years old, in order to convey citizenship automatically."[/quote]
But there is an even greater problem, Hussein Obama already mentioned that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. It is here at:
"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…’ "
From the blog, "Natural Born Citizen",
"But the most on point definition comes from the Minor case where they indicated doubts exist as to the citizenship of native born citizens of foreign parentage. I have never said it's clearly defined. Regardless, the weight of evidence suggests that a person who was a citizen of a foreign nation should not be Commander in Chief of this one."
The Relevant Obama Admission
I hate to be the one to break this to you but the US is no longer a British colony. It is quite likely Kenya considered Obama a British subject when he was born and a Kenyan citizen after independence but that’s irrelevant to the question of whether Obama was a US citizen at birth. All that is relevant is what United States law says about the subject.
And what US law says is that anyone born in the US is a United States citizen at birth. It doesn’t matter if Obama’s mother was from Jupiter and his father was from Betelgeuse, if he was born in the United States he was a United States citizen at birth. Many people who are born United States citizens are also considered citizens by other countries. That’s not the newborn’s problem and it’s not the concern of the United States.
Minor is irrelevant. It may be that in 1874 the issue of whether children born in the United States to non-citizen parents were citizens was still open but the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling cited in the link I provided in an earlier comment settled that issue: born in the US = US citizen when born. And I can’t imagine a clearer meaning for “natural born” than “citizen of the United States when born”.
This means the only possible route to argue Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen is to argue he was not born in the United States. This is the reason the five-year residency requirement has anything to do with this issue: it gives those who claim Obama was NOT born in the United States something to hang their hats on. I consider the 5-year residence after 14 irrelevant because I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. Some quite rational people believe - or at least suspect - that Obama was born outside the United States. It’s a free country, that’s their prerogative, and if they have hard evidence to that effect, I’ll be glad to consider it.
But issues of Kenyan citizenship, collapsing marriages, Communist sympathies, and your rather distasteful views on race, sex, and young women have absolutely nothing to do with the question of Obama’s citizenship. (And when you say you’re quoting something, you’re supposed to quote it, not slide in words like “alleged”.)
I hate to break the news to you Elise---Barack Sr was a British Citizen and British Law determines the citizenship of Barack JR NOT US law. The lawyer running the blog "Natural Born Citizenship" has read US Embassy manuals and they say foreign law takes precedence over US Law in matters of Parents.
We don't know where he was born Elise. We are trying to find out. For some reason, Hussein has not released his long form birth certificate, he has not released kindegarten, elementary, high school, or college transcripts. He has released none of his writings, if he wrote any, at Harvard Law Review.
The Media has given this guy a pass on everything!!! He doesn't have to prove anything---and he hasn't proven where he was born. The document that was produced on the internet is a short form. Obama could have been born overseas and that form would have been given to him anyway. It doesn't prove that he was born in Hawaii.
You """believe"""" Hussein was born in Hawaii. No definitive proof has been presented.
And maybe why you find my views distasteful on race, gender, and political ideologies is because you imbibed from the well of Marxist political correctness for too long. I'm an anti-communist and I can smell a communist a mile away and thru the internet---and you quack like one. I am of the Old Order where my thoughts are normal and righteous.
I am one of those that have self-deprogrammed from the Marxist social conditioning that is ubiquitous in American education and media. I am one of those who have escaped and freed myself from the marxist brainwashing of this current environment. Sorry to disappoint you.
And maybe why you find my views distasteful on race, gender, and political ideologies
What I found distasteful were your views on race, sex, and young women. If you're going to call me a Marxist please at least get the basis for doing so correct.
I believe I have once again fallen into the trap Grim describes so accurately. Some day I'll learn.
For now I'm going to remove my small aquatic bird of the family anatidae self from the line of fire.