Conspiracy Lawsuit Watch: Alan Keyes Sues Barack Obama
posted by Scott Moss
Alan Keyes has completed his path from the establishment (Harvard PhD, Reagan’s UN Ambassador, two-time Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, 1996 Republican primary Presidential Candidate…) to the world of conspiracy theory. Dr. Keyes has sued to halt the allocation of California’s electoral votes to President-Elect Obama on the theory that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, as the Constitution requires for election to the Presidency.
At first I thought that, like many conspiracy theories, this one is wacky but ultimately non-disprovable unless Obama indulges the accusers by producing his birth certificate for public view, which I thought unlikely (because then any accuser could make something up to demand access to Obama’s original personal documents). It turns out, though, that, as FactCheck recounts in detail (with pictures), Obama did disclose his original birth certificate, thereby disproving claims that Obama’s alleged U.S. birth certificate lacked a raised seal, etc., and therefore is a fraud. FactCheck also cites a birth announcement for baby Barack Obama in a 1961 Honolulu newspaper, which is hard to explain away.
Yet the lawsuit still exists, filed by a highly intelligent guy (whatever else may be said about Dr. Keyes). I suppose he still could claim that (a) the Honolulu newspaper doctored its 1961 microfilm to support Obama’s claim of Hawaii birth, (b) Obama spent millions on machinery and staff capable of creating flawless counterfeit birth certificates, (c) etc.
I’ve always been oddly intrigued by conspiracy theories (though I haven’t made it a field of scholarship like Mark Fenster!), but it’s always hard to define “conspiracy”; is any lawsuit lacking direct evidence a conspiracy theory, and if so, doesn’t that include a lot of discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence, antitrust claims, mafia/gang prosecutions, etc? It’s an interesting question, and it’s always struck me as unfortunate that I don’t have more than an “I know it when I see it” definition of a conspiracy theory.
I suppose a relatively narrow definition of a conspiracy theory is “an accusation (a) that is disproven by tangible evidence and (b) that therefore posits a massive conspiracy (i) involving many people (ii) to falsify complex and historical documents (iii) in various established institutions.” Congratulations to Dr. Keyes for qualifying as a conspiracy theorist under even this narrow definition!
November 17, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Posted in: Constitutional Law, Current Events, Politics
Print This Post
Responses (128)
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I think you’ll find that it’s possible to ridicule Dr. Keyes without distorting what’s involved in the case. So why distort?
Keyes acknowledges that Obama has produced the certification of live birth that FactCheck examined. However, Keyes points out that it’s a laser-printed short-form document that merely summarizes what’s in Obama’s original long-form birth certificate. So, Keyes is basically saying: why not show us a copy of the original 1961 birth certificate? The original would indicate things like the specific hospital and attending physician, and stuff like that, none of which is on the laser-printed short-form.
Given all these facts, you can still ridicule Keyes for suspecting that the laser-printed short-form does not accurately convey what’s in the original long-form. I would ridicule him for that, but you could.
I hope that Obama releases the 1961 short-form, to put all of these conspiracy theories to rest. There’s a 99% chance that the original long-form will prove beyond any doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But really, it’s not a complete fantasy for Keyes to see a small probability that Obama was born in Kenya. His parents, after all, were on summer vacation in 1961, and why wouldn’t the mother want to visit the father’s homeland? And if she gave birth there in August 1961, why wouldn’t she want to hurry back to Hawaii to register the son in Hawaii, to avoid the hassle of naturalization? All of this seems like a huge stretch to me, and I’m 99% sure that Obama was born in Hawaii, but what’s so awful if Keyes wants to go for 100% certainty?
Incidentally, we know that Ann Dunham (Obama’s Mom) liked to travel; she went to visit Washington State later in August of 1961 with her newborn baby. It does not seem preposterous at all that she and her husband travelled out of Hawaii together before their son’s birth.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Meant to say “I would not ridicule him for that, but you could.”
A.W. - November 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Well, all of this is an expression of people on the conservative end of things see this as a remarkably poor choice for president. And while the underlying anxiety is justified, I doubt we will be saved from Carter Jr. by a bolt-out-of-the-blue thing like this. Face it, guys, it will be 4 years inside the barrell, and while I hope he will defy logic and prove to be a great president, at this point I will settle for “not f—ing things up so badly that the next president can’t fix it.”
Still…
Why not just turn over the documents and get it over with? Of course some nuts will still say they are faked, etc., but why not produce what rational people want which is the documents?
dave hoffman - November 17, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Scott,
Check out the comments to my earlier post on Berg v. Obama. This has been percolating for a while…
JP - November 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm
My theory is that all of these rumors and lawsuits are part of a vast conspiracy (orchestrated by the Governator, perhaps?) to manufacture support for an Amendment eliminating the natural born citizen requirement.
More seriously, private employers can’t engage in national origin discrimination; it’s past time we stop letting the drafters of the Constitution do it.
Howard Wasserman - November 17, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Not only does Keyes lack standing (a point both Dave and I covered in earlier posts on similar, less high-profile lawsuits). But this one has the added benefit of being dismissed as moot: Obama still has an E/C majority without California’s 55 electoral votes.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Howard, you’re recommending that Keyes should sue now in Florida as well? He was on the ballot in both states.
smrstrauss - November 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Re: Why not just turn over the documents and get it over with? Of course some nuts will still say they are faked, etc., but why not produce what rational people want which is the documents?
Who,other than right-wing bloggers, has asked to see his real birth certificate? If you say the court cases, well those cases have not been settled yet, so there is no reason why Obama cannot wait until (or if at all) a court asks to see the document.
Before then, he would just be posting it on line, with all the problems that on-line posting has had in the past. Comments along these lines: “The documents are not clear; you cannot see the raised seal, etc.” Moreover, it is possible that the original of the birth certificate now exists only in microfilm, so the posting would just be a copy of the microfilm, which critics would claim was forged.
When there is a court with authority to see a document and with the facilities to hire experts who can verify the document, is the right time to show it.
Until then, the officials in Hawaii have said that the files show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing. They claim that a tape recording of a long-distance telephone call with Obama’s grandmother proves that he was born in Kenya.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The man who was with her during the interview (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya. Or, she could simply be wishing that she had been there when Obama was born. Or, she could simply be confused. It is not evidence.
smrstrauss - November 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Re: Why not just turn over the documents and get it over with? Of course some nuts will still say they are faked, etc., but why not produce what rational people want which is the documents?
Who,other than right-wing bloggers, has asked to see his real birth certificate? If you say the court cases, well those cases have not been settled yet, so there is no reason why Obama cannot wait until (or if at all) a court asks to see the document.
Before then, he would just be posting it on line, with all the problems that on-line posting has had in the past. Comments along these lines: “The documents are not clear; you cannot see the raised seal, etc.” Moreover, it is possible that the original of the birth certificate now exists only in microfilm, so the posting would just be a copy of the microfilm, which critics would claim was forged.
When there is a court with authority to see a document and with the facilities to hire experts who can verify the document, is the right time to show it.
Until then, the officials in Hawaii have said that the files show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing. They claim that a tape recording of a long-distance telephone call with Obama’s grandmother proves that he was born in Kenya.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The man who was with her during the interview (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya. Or, she could simply be wishing that she had been there when Obama was born. Or, she could simply be confused. It is not evidence.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 4:55 pm
If the original long-form birth certificate indicates that Obama was not born in any Hawaii hospital attended by a named physician, then there might be cause to investigate the matter further by looking into U.S. and/or Kenyan passport and customs records. But if the original long-form birth certificate indicates that Obama WAS born in a Hawaii hospital attended by a named physician, then the matter is obviously closed for any reasonable person.
And if Obama was willing to provide the laser-printed short form to FactCheck.org and to post it on the Obama website, then there’s no reason not to provide a certified copy of the original long form to FactCheck.org and post that on the Obama website as well.
Mike - November 17, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The funny thing is that if McCain had won, that would have raised a more legitimate issue of whether he meets the Constitutional test of being a “natural born Citizen.” The Republican attack dogs are so accustomed to making absurd attacks on grounds that they themselves are vulnerable on — remember Chambliss attaking Cleland? –that Keyes is simply carrying through on their vile, base instincts. An earlier suit trying to raise the same issue has already been dismissed.
Dave Weigel - November 17, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I hope that Obama releases the 1961 short-form, to put all of these conspiracy theories to rest.
Why? Why be bullied by fringe idiots like Keyes or Phil Berg, whose last big lawsuit was against George Bush for letting 9/11 happen? (Fire has never melted steel, you see.)
If I was Obama, I’d leave this stuff “hanging” (if that’s even the right word, as official Hawai’i legal documents disprove Keyes) just to district and piss off the mouthbreathers. If they weren’t butting their heads against this wall they might be doing something more dangerous.
Oh, one thing I’ve always wondered about this – has anyone ever suggested or shown that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, took a trip to Kenya in 1961? No one in Obama’s family has ever suggested such a thing. And it was no small deal for a pregnant woman to fly in 1961, much less to an African country that you need a medical check-up before you visit.
smrstrauss - November 17, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Re: Why not just turn over the documents and get it over with? Of course some nuts will still say they are faked, etc., but why not produce what rational people want which is the documents?
Who,other than right-wing bloggers, has asked to see his real birth certificate? If you say the court cases, well those cases have not been settled yet, so there is no reason why Obama cannot wait until (or if at all) a court asks to see the document.
Before then, he would just be posting it on line, with all the problems that on-line posting has had in the past. The documents are not clear; you cannot see the raised seal, etc. Moreover, it is possible that the original of the birth certificate now exists only in microfilm, so the posting would just be a copy of the microfilm, which critics would claim was forged.
When there is a court with authority to see a document and with the facilities to hire experts who can verify the document, is the right time to show it.
Until then, the officials in Hawaii have said that the files show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing. They claim that a tape recording of a long-distance telephone call with Obama’s grandmother proves that he was born in Kenya.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The man who was with her during the interview (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya. Or, she could simply be wishing that she had been there when Obama was born. Or, she could simply be confused. It is not evidence.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Well, Keyes would have a much harder time going after McCain on the citizenship issue, seeing as how McCain’s parent were both U.S. citizens.
As to why Obama has not released a copy of the original birth certificate, maybe the commenters above are correct: maybe it’s “to distract and piss off the mouthbreathers” or maybe it’s to “stop letting the drafters of the Constitution” engage in national origin discrimination. Neither would be valid reasons, IMHO. It may be a lousy, archaic requirement of the U.S. Constitution, but that’s why we have Article V. We do agree that Article V is sometimes necessary, don’t we?
Eigernorthface - November 17, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Keyes should have just joined the Berg case as an additional plaintiff. This would have eliminated the standing question in the Berg case and allowed the facts to be gotten to sooner.
There’s is no point in Obama offerring up any documents on the internet. It will take a trained document examiner the better part of a week to examine and come to a conclusion about any document he does offer up. I mean a person with 20 years of experience at the FBI or CIA in forensic document authentication — and they will need to obtain a variety of samples for comparison — so let’s just say a week by a highly trained and extensively experienced career professional.
In the meantime, internet speculations, about this or that document are a total waste of time. This sort of thing is done with a big microscope, a reflection spectrometer, lab equipment to test paper content, and ink content, a gas chromatograph, and a variety of techniques involving osmosis such as eletrophoresis. It’s not something that an “expert” from fact check or anywhere else can see on their computer screen.
In any case, the location of Obama’s birth, is the least strong of Berg’s claims — the one least likely to lead to an opinion that disposes of the case.
The strongest Berg claim has to do with Obama’s travel to Pakistan in 1981, when he was 20 years old, on an Indonesian passport. Did this really happen or not? If it did, it is significant because a 20 year old person is not a minor. That act would constitute self-expatriation. The expatriation could be reversed only by later taking the Oath of Allegiance before a judicial or consular officer or the Attorney General.
Anyone taking such an oath would remember where and when they did it. If Obama did take such a oath, he could point us to where and when. Then it’s just a question of looking in the files. They keep files about that. The data is also kept at the State Department either at C Street in Washington, or in their GSA leased warehouse for long-term storage of official records. It’s a five cent problem if Obama took the oath and discloses where and when he did that.
Condi Rice needs to answer four little questions before she certifies the outcome of the Electoral College vote:
1. Did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?
2. Did Obama enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?
3. Did Obama subsequently take the Oath of Allegiance to reclaim and restore his US citizenship?
4. If so, where did he do that, and when was the oath taken?
The total cost of answering these four little questions is extremely small — it could take as much as a week and cost as much as $100 — including phonecalls to Pakistan and Indonesia.
If Condi Rice knowingly makes a false official statement in certifying the vote of the Electoral College, that would be a felony. If she fails to make a simple and frugal inquiry into the Indonesia/Pakistan/Oath of Allegiance matter, that would be gross and willful dereliction of duty, which would be a serious offense, if not a felony.
The Article II requirement is not a detail. It goes to the issue of good order and discipline in the military. These are people at all ranks from General to private who may be asked to lay down their lives at the direction and command of the President. The Founders thought they needed to know that the Article II requirements were met. The Founders knew more about political philosophy and having amazingly astute foresight than anybody alive before then or since their time — and surely more than anybody alive today — and most certainly more than anybody blogging on the internet, myself included.
Eigernorthface has approved this message 17 Nov 08 1825 EST
Bruce Boyden - November 17, 2008 at 6:30 pm
FactCheck also cites a birth announcement for baby Barack Obama in a 1961 Honolulu newspaper, which is hard to explain away.
This just indicates the amount of careful planning that has gone into this conspiracy.
Jessica Slavin - November 17, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Yes, Bruce. Careful and advance planning.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Eigernorthface, if you’re really serious, I think you have some things to learn. To be expatriated, a citizen must do more than engage in conduct deemed by law to be an act of expatriation. The person must also engage in that conduct with the specific intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. See 444 U.S. 263 (requiring that “the expatriating act [be] accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship”).
Bruce, Keyes is not disputing that a birth certificate was issued to Obama in 1961. And the state provided a list of those births to the media on a regular basis. No conspiracy there. Sorry.
Tartuffe - November 17, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I thought birth records were matters of public record. I know I have gotten them for my children w/o any bother. If so, why doesnt the right try and get them?
I have met Keyes in a non-political setting. He is very nice and a complete fruitcake.
Tartuffe - November 17, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I thought birth records were matters of public record. I know I have gotten them for my children w/o any bother. If so, why doesnt the right try and get them?
I have met Keyes in a non-political setting. He is very nice and a complete fruitcake.
Tartuffe - November 17, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I thought birth records were matters of public record. I know I have gotten them for my children w/o any bother. If so, why doesnt the right try and get them?
I have met Keyes in a non-political setting. He is very nice and a complete fruitcake.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 8:17 pm
At least he’s very nice.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Tartuffe, according to the government of Hawaii: “A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
tim - November 17, 2008 at 9:06 pm
My birth certificate (labeled “certificate of live birth” in my case) does not contain the name of the physician – just the name of the hospital. And besides my parents names, how much i weighed at birth, the county and misspelling my middle name (corrected by hand), it contains very little information. In addition Obama would of had to furnish his US birth certificate to get an US passport. So in that sense the US Secretary of State has already ruled he is a US citizen.
This whole “debate” about is just plain silly.
Andrew - November 17, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Agreed, it is silly for several reasons. First, the “Natural-Born Citizen Clause” is a silly provision of the Constitution (which thus presents an excellent test of fealty). Second, the billion reasons for not disclosing the original birth certificate are silly (and bode ill for the openness of the new administration). Third, some of the wild demands of Obama opponents, such as the demands that the undisclosed birth certificate be subjected to electron microscopy and spectral analysis, are silly (and bring people like Keyes into more disrepute by association).
Anyway, can I post three links here? This is the 2007 laser-printed short-form that President-Elect Obama has disclosed:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
This is what a 1963 long-form birth certificate from Hawaii looks like:
http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
And this is what John McCain’s long-form birth certificate looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:McCain_Certificate_of_Birth.jpg
H. Rand - November 17, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I think it’s HILARIOUS that the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper serves as “proof enough” for some people. That’s honestly one of the most short-sighted things I’ve ever heard. And I’ve been hearing it more and more….
Sooo….if you and your wife live in Ohio, but you have a kid in Florida, are you telling me you’re not going to send news home? Are you telling me that because you had the kid in Florida, what…you’re bound legally or something to post the birth announcement there? Does anyone else not see the hilarity in that “proof”??
I wasn’t sure about this at all, until Chiyome Fukino released what is ultimately a bone dry statement on the matter. I would quietly question why the FEC or BOE or even the DNC hadn’t stepped up to say “Hey, we properly vetted this guy – and we’re willing to put our credibility on the line by making this statement saying so.” But when Fukino’s statement came out, it became pretty clear to me: no one in their right mind would put their own (actual governing) name on the line to align themselves with what increasingly looks to be the greatest act of fraud ever perpetrated on the American people or our most coveted process. An initial supporter of Obama’s, I found myself grudgingly wiping the slate clean every time he’d get caught in one of his “What I really meant” type statements, and listening to the press tell me it was all understandableishesque. No more. You can’t trapse the Constitution in a relentless pursuit for power, for a position that swears you to protect the Constitution, and retain my support. Beyond that, I bought in to his promise for transparency. I didn’t mainline “hope” and “change” the way many of my peers did. But I liked the idea of transparency and believed him when he said he embraced it. Now this?
Thanks, but no thanks. And a big thanks to Keyes and others who are stepping up unpopularly to address it.
Supremacy Claus - November 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm
The Supremacy voted for Obama just for this kind of fun. Scott spends his time reading policy manuals for stupid, bogus, pretextual lawyer gotcha.
Now, someone tries to do the same lawyer gotcha to his boy, Obama, and he gets all intense. The best he can come up with is name calling. He has no facts, nor law on his side. It could be easily settled by that totally biased, left wing ideologue Governor of Hawaii.
So what is left for Scott, and the left wing lawyers here? Name calling and personal attack.
Landed Gentry - November 17, 2008 at 11:54 pm
The latest theory from other “nut-jobs-just-like-me” – - (we may be right…)
1.)Allegedly, Obama was born in Kenya, where his given name was “Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama”
2.)Allegedly, no long form original certificate record exists in Hawaii. The “original record”, (i.e., the “long form”) as it was executed in many States back in 1961, was simply a little index card, or a 5” X 7” form, that was generally signed off on by a doctor, or a nurse, or a midwife, or whoever actually witnessed the birth. The so-called long form, if it exists, is the Holy Grail sought after in this particular exercise.
3.)As this theory goes, Obama’s decadent hippy mom falsely “registered” his birth in Hawaii, using the so-called “short form by declaration” method (look it up) which was legal in Hawaii thru 1972, and could be legally executed based on only the testimony of the parent, with no evidence or doctor’s statement or hospital record.
4.)A legal certificate can be produced from the short-form, and is generally not questioned. However, if Obama’s real birth certificate exists in Kenya, and if there is no long form on record in Hawaii, then the Supreme Court faces a Constitutional nightmare.
The above points, 1-4, exist as the latest theory regarding the Obama birth certificate issue. The “short-form by declaration” conspiracy isn’t much of a conspiracy, and if true, I am disappointed. I was really hoping for an elaborate and entertaining conspiracy. If Obama was born in Kenya, and if his mom simply traveled back to Hawaii with him shortly thereafter, and falsely declared his birth, (including the newspaper announcement) then she alone broke the law, without the assistance of any co-conspirators.
Too simple…
. . .
Where this may end up – -
The Electoral College meets (in each of the 50 States) on December 15.
According to the 20th Amendment, the Electors CLEARLY have legal standing to question the qualifications of the “Presumptive-President-Elect” (Obama is not really the President-Elect until after the Electoral College votes on 15-DEC-2008)
The 20th Amendment identifies the Electoral College as the place & time to challenge a candidate’s credentials…(Age and Citizenship) – - Please read this article – -
http://peoplespassions.org/documents…irth_place.htm
An awful lot can happen between now and 15-December-2008
And, it really is that simple… If Obama was born in Kenya, then he is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America (See Article II, Clause V of the Constitution )
. . .
The Audacity of Unconstitutional Hopeful Ambitions – - Affidavit of Statement by Obama’s Kenyan Grandmom . . . (“whoops”)
http://comments.blogware.com/Affidav…20Shuhubia.pdf
. . .
Simply stated, this is a neat little conspiracy theory, as it has evolved, that seems to fit all known facts:
1.)Obama’s Kenya Grandmom has testified that Obama was born in Kenya;
2.)The Kenyan government will not admit if there is or is not an Obama birth record on file in Kenya, and they have denied all access to any Kenya government records relating to Obama;
3.)The long form vault record in Hawaii, if it exists, has allegedly not been examined, and Obama has refused to allow it to be examined.
I hope that the 9 Old Men on the Supreme Court can be made to understand that there are three types of documents or birth certificate records:
a.)The so-called birth certificate, which we have all seen on the Internet, and which may be created at any time from the data contained in either the long form physical record or the short form database record;
b.)The short form record could easily be bogus, in the scenario illustrated in the opening of my post, points 1-4;
c.)The long form physical record is harder to fake, and no one has seen that record.
These are the facts, and the facts fit the so-called “conspiracy theory”. The Electors have the right to bring challenge Obama on three points: (1.)Does a Kenyan birth record exist? (2.)Does a Hawaii long form original vault record exist? (3.)Forensics – - The Justice Department could simply send a forensic team to look at the original vault record, in order to at least verify the signatures and to verify that the ink and paper are the same age and type as the ink and paper on other sequential records before and after Obama’s 1961 vault record original.
I have a little different perspective on this than most of you. I am a 59 year old American engineer. I have not been back to the USA since 2002. I live and work in Bangkok, Thailand. There is a place on Khao San Road, here in Bangkok, where I can have any raised impression seal made for about $10-USD and any rubber stamp made for about $2-USD. The paper that you see on FactCheck and Obama’s web site (The laser print job) is a recently produced certificate of life birth. (“COLB”) It was printed on an old style 25 pound bond 8.5” X 11” security paper known as “Check Protect, Basket Weave Pattern, Green”. I have an entire ream of it at the office, we print boiler inspection certificates on that kind of paper. Anyone can buy that paper, and it is the most common paper still in use by State agencies. My graphic artists and the guys on Khao San Road could whip out a beautiful COLB in under 48 hours, and you would never detect the difference.
Sadly, those are the facts.
joan calhoun - November 18, 2008 at 1:42 am
Kenya has publicly declared that all of Mr. Obama’s documents are locked up in a vault. We know Mr. Obama went to Africa as an American tourist to visit his family. Now I ask you: what could possibly be in the Kenyan vault? Records of his taxi-cab rides? His receipts for hotel meals? Remember, he is only there as an American tourist. The only thing worth locking up in a Kenyan vault, and protecting, would be something of actual consequence, such as his Kenyan birth certificate.
joan calhoun - November 18, 2008 at 1:44 am
Kenya has publicly declared that all of Mr. Obama’s documents are locked up in a vault. We know Mr. Obama went to Africa as an American tourist to visit his family. Now I ask you: what could possibly be in the Kenyan vault? Records of his taxi-cab rides? His receipts for hotel meals? Remember, he is only there as an American tourist. The only thing worth locking up in a Kenyan vault, and protecting, would be something of actual consequence, such as his Kenyan birth certificate.
Andrew - November 18, 2008 at 3:06 am
Oh jeez, in my first comment above, I meant to say: “I hope that Obama releases the 1961 long-form, to put all of these conspiracy theories to rest.” Sorry.
A.W. - November 18, 2008 at 8:54 am
Smrs:
> Who, other than right-wing bloggers, has asked to see his real birth certificate? If you say the court cases, well those cases have not been settled yet, so there is no reason why Obama cannot wait until (or if at all) a court asks to see the document.
Um, that is a reason why he doesn’t HAVE TO release the documents. But, you haven’t explained why he shouldn’t do it.
Just release the documents already. Frankly, the only reason I have any suspicions about him on this count is because he refuses to do it. innocent men don’t lawyer up.
I mean hell, it isn’t like he has better things to do. He just quit his old job, and his new job doesn’t start for another 2 months. So rummage around and find the thing already.
By the way, who do you expect to ask for the birth certificate? Keith Olberman? Chris “thrilla up my leg” Matthews. Yeah, most challenges for basic qualification have a partisan hand behind it. so? I thought ad hominem was a fallacy.
Again, just release it. Why not?
Andrew
> We do agree that Article V is sometimes necessary, don’t we?
No way! That is what we have a living constitution for, so we can amend the constitution defacto without all that messy consent of the people… /sarcasm
Eigernorthface - November 18, 2008 at 10:05 am
A few brief comments on today’s posts:
1. To Andrew: Learning is good. Being serious about serious matters is fitting. Regarding 444 U.S. 263 — I have not studied the case — I’ll accept that your quote from it is an accurate quote “the expatriating act must be accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship” (or words to that effect).
My comment: If this is the law it needs a lot of clarification. Intent is sometimes proved by an objective test which might go like this: A 20 year old non-minor non-mentally unfit person travels on an Indonesian passport and enters Pakistan using that passport. Using an objective test of intent one may reasonably infer from this act that there is an intent to assert Indonesian citizenship. Such an intent is inconsistent with maintaining United States citizenship. He intended to do what he did, and what he did was something that a reasonable man would know was inconsistent with being a United States citizen — therefore using the objective test, as applied to an adult of sound mind acting voluntarily, one may conclude that the requirements of the above cited case have been met.
There is also a subjective test of intent which is sometimes used in the law. This would require that Obama in his own mind specifically sought to expatriate himself — that was what he was trying to do in his own mind. The problem with this test is that it totally vitiates the meaning of the term “expatriating act”. If the significance of any given act, whether it should be deemed expatriating or not, for example, depends on the internal mental state of the actor — an adult of sound mind performing the act under no compulsion — then the words expatriating act have been drained of meaning. People are deemed to intend the natural consequences of their deeds. A reasonable man would know that obtaining and using a passport from a foreign country is an act inconsistent with U.S. citizenship. Obama used such a passport voluntarily — he must be deemed to have intended to use it — and the natural consequences of such use. The Oath of allegiance, if taken later would replace this presumed intent with a new superceding explicit intent — “No .. no I am and want to be a citizen of the U.S. not Indonesia!!!” A perfectly easy oath to take — was it taken? If not, Obama has obviated his U.S. citizenship, and never explicitely taken the only lawful step that would restore it to him. Trying to be a serious learner here.
2. On the subject of conspiracy theory — I don’t see any conspiracy, never have seen such a thing in the facts of this case — you must be confusing my posts with someone else’s. I’ve said that I think the Berg allegations about the passport use and oath of allegiance issue is the strongest part of his case.
3. My hat’s off to Landed Gentry who realizes that significant expertise, equipment and experience are required to tell a genuine document from a fake. I have no hypothesis on whether a long form birth certificate for Obama exists in Kenya, or in Hawai’i. If such a thing is ever found, I hope it will be analysed by a competent forensic lab and qualified document examiner. My four little questions do not relate to Obama’s place of birth, nor are they impacted in any way by the prior career moves of Phil Berg — his prior court cases and books. The four questions stand — nothing else is part of my position. I say the four questions should be answered prior to Obama being inaugurated. I say Condi Rice is the right person to get that job done — she has the duty and the position — she has the obligation and the capacity as U.S. Secretary of State.
3. On the subject of sorting it all out in the Electoral College — I agree they have standing — I’m not sure they have the resources to do the job. What branch are they in? It seems to me the proper branch to do this job in is the Executive Branch that does have the capacity to perform an adequate investigation — Condi Rice has the certify the results coming out of the Electoral College — she should only certify the eligible person getting the most votes in the Electoral College — and she should decline to certify the inelligible person getting the most votes.
If the Executive Branch fails to do a proper inquiry, then the Judicial Branch would be called upon to review what was done and determine if it was Constitutionally adequate. If Condi certifies Obama as the person to be inaugurated, that decision is subject to judicial review — although I do not think the Supreme Court or any inferior Federal Court has the resources to get a proper investigation done. They might be able to issue a Writ of Mandamus specifying how the investigation should be done, if Condi fails to do it right. My four little questions might play a role in such a Writ.
Eigernorthface has approved this message 18 Nov 08 10:02 EST
Bama 1L - November 18, 2008 at 11:03 am
This is a nonjusticiable political question. Keyes is wasting his time in court. He should lobby the Electors and Congress.
Bama 1L - November 18, 2008 at 11:11 am
Where did the idea that the U.S. Secretary of State has some role in certifying presidential election results originate? There is no such process. The Congress, with the President of the Senate presiding, does this. People are thinking of state secretaries of state.
Leo - November 18, 2008 at 11:27 am
Conspiracy theories aside, I have a few questions.
1. Since when has a website been considered legally able to verify any document that can be presented as evidence for anything, much less an issue as important as a prospective president’s constitutional qualification to hold office?
2. If the current procedure is for the individual party to verify a candidate’s qualifications, then why has the DNC simply not released a statement that they did so and their candidate meets the constitutional requirement?
3. How exactly does citizenship “lapse”? Since Obama Sr. was technically a citizen of Kenya, he was bestowed British citzenship, which then was conferred to Obama Jr. at birth. According to Obama himself, he allowed his British citizenship to “lapse” by not renewing it. I believe we need review British law as well to resolve that issue or we are allowing a President with dual citizenship to hold office, which would is essence violate Article II of the Constitution.
Eigernorthface - November 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Article II, section 1, paragraph 3 does give the procedure that Bama 1L describes. He may be correct on the issue of Condi Rice certifying the result of the Electoral College vote. As the U.S. Secretary of State she is however ideally situated to acquire the information in the four questions:
1. Did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?
2. Did he do so on an Indonesian passport?
3. Did he subsequently take the Oath of Allegiance to restore his U.S. citizenship?
4. If so, where is the paperwork on that transaction — can the written record be produced?
These are questions of international law requiring diplomatic efforts to get the answers, at least for questions 1 and 2. For questions 3 and 4 it is most likely that if Obama did take the Oath of Allegiance the records of that fact would be retained at the State Department long term archives. This would be true even if he took the Oath of Allegiance in a Federal Court, or before the U.S. Attorney General.
So Condi may not be the certifier of the Electoral College vote, but she is certainly the person who should get the first opportunity to come up with the answers to the four questions.
None of those questions are non justiciable.
None of those questions are “political questions” within the meaning of that term under American caselaw. These are straight up matters of fact — he travelled or he didn’t, on an Indonesian passport, or not, then he took the Oath of Allegiance or he didn’t, and there’s paperwork on that or there’s not. No part of these four questions requires or admits of the exercise of political choicemaking or political discretion. They are as much political questions as the location of the Washington Monument is a political question — in other words — they are not at all political questions. They are matters of fact, no more, no less.
Let’s assume that all the certifying is done right there in the Congress, with the President of the Senate presiding over the proceedings. Would these proceedings be subject ot judicial review? Would any participant be subject to a Writ of Mandamus commanding that certain inquiries be made, and successfully brought to their factual outcomes before the final determination is made of who was in fact legitimately elected?
This is a tough question. The Constitution does not specify any set of inquiries that must be made to assure that the requirements of Article II section 1 have been met. Does this mean that the Electors are free to be 100% perfectly negligent about making sure a candidate is eligible? Could they, for example, just glance at a purported document offered up on the internet, and then proclaim themselves to be fully satisfied, no further inquiries needed? How about if they got the newspaper clipping from Hawai’i where rhe Obama Baby birth is announced — could they say “Sure he’s a citizen, see it’s right there in the paper! Let’s move on to other business!”
I would suggest that the Electors must behave as reasonable persons in order to escape judicial review of their actions. They have to take reasonable steps to assure that the Constitution is being complied with. Otherwise, the Court can command them to take those steps. Let’s call that checks and balances. The counting of the votes and the certifying of the winner is a political question as long as the participants do so in a reasonable manner. That has got to be the intent of the Constitution. This means that if they act in an arbitrary, capricious, willful, or grossly negligent manner, then what they do may be amended and guided by Writs from the Courts. This is not like the passage of ordinary legislation. Under Marbury v Madison it is the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the Constitution means, and in this case whether it is being properly complied with.
With regard to the DNC, the FEC, the Obama Litigators — one must observe that if they were trying to create a constitutional crisis, they would not act any differently than the way they have actually acted. The evasiveness, the secretiveness, the stonewalling, the refusal to disclose information freely that people have a right to ask about, and be concerned about, and want answers about. Many organizations in this world do not act in reasonable ways — the DNC is an excellent example at this time, but the Obama Litigators have got to come is a close second.
One way or another it would be far better to resolve this matter before January 20th than after. Condi Rice could play a pro-active role getting the four little questions answered — or it could all be left to a mad scramble at the very last minute.
The possible need to review British law is an interesting twist. So is Obama a Kenyan, and Indonesian, or an American? Hard to say. I don’t think the Electors have the resources to figure it out, and I don’t think they have the leeway to be 100% negligent about it — just nonchalant, sans souci, devil may care about it.
The Supreme Court should head off the crisis by hearing the Berg case on its merits, and if the merits are good enough, directing that a proper investigation be done — probably led by Condi Rice with the assistance of the Attorney General.
Richard - November 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm
The fact that Obama’s birth was announced in the Hawaii newspaper means nothing. My father was in the military but was born and raised in Virginia. I was born when he was stationed in Mississippi. My parents did not announce my birth in Mississippi. They announced my birth in the small Virginia town where my father grew up. Similarly, if Obama was born in Kenya his parents would not announce the birth solely in Kenya. They would also announce it in Hawaii. They might also have announced it in Washington State where the mothers parents lived. Again, the fact that Obama’s birth was announced in Hawaii in no way proves or even suggests that he was actually born in Hawaii.
Eigernorthface - November 18, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I hope you’ve noticed that none of my posts contain any suggestion about where Obama might have been born or not born. I just have no hypothesis on this matter. For my purposes, I assume for the sake of argument he was born in Honolulu Hawai’i — but I don’t assert that as a fact. I have no way of knowing where he was born.
I do know this — Having served as an international law specialist for the US Navy in the Philippines — Societies that have no tradition of science contain mostly people who have no concept whatsoever about thte idea that there is an objective and verifiable “Truth”.
The people in these societies, which include most places except Europe China and Japan believe that truth is a function of who is asking the question, what they could possibly do to the person they are interrogating — whether a protein bisquit might be obtained for giving this or that answer to make the questioner happy.
You see they assume that we know that these are the rules of the game. We Westerners are so amazingly dumb, we simply project our whole paradigm of “Objective Reality” and “Actual Genuine Truth” onto the situation.
For most people in the world there is only “Situational Reality = the Next Possible protein Bisquit” Everything else is just insanity.
The trick to being an international lawyer, is to not project the Western Ideas about how things are onto the answers given by affants in foreign lands that have no tradition whatsoever of science and no concept whatsover of “objective Truth”.
Just don’t lie — just tell the truth — the *real* truth as it actually is — How many hours did I spend begging foreigners to do just that one thing — but those were my salad days – now I know better — older and wiser, you see?
There is no truth outside the Gates of Eden — Bob Dylan said it best — just put those gates where the borders of science are — the countries outside of science are places where the whole idea of objective truth might as well be from another planet.
So I don’t want to hear from peoople in Kenya, and I don’t want to hear from people in Indonesia. If we can’t figure this one out based on documents and witnesses that are USA or British, French, German, Japanese, Italian, Chinese — then Obama gets in as far as I’m concerned. The Kenya/Indonesia stuff is just dogmeat-nonsense — for $10 I could pay anybody in any of those places to say anything — for a protein bisquit they would say anything. So grandmothers from Kenya — null effect. Affiants from Indonesia — null effect.
Just let me see the American investigation — what FBI and CIA finds out. Let me see the American documents whatever they find in the State Department records about Oaths of Allegiance and who took them.
Whatever bias I have on the reliability of oral evidence from foreign sources is well earned and well paid for, just know that, it’s a fact.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 18 Nov 08 2011 hrs EST
Bama 1L - November 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Eigernorth, you need to be looking at the 12th Amendment, not Art. II, § 1, for the current procedure of counting up electoral votes and declaring a new President and Vice President. The original procedure did not work so well. Also look at 3 U.S.C. § 15 if you want even more detail. We saw the Congressional challenge process used in 2000 and 2004.
The nonjusticiable political question is an individual’s qualification for the Presidency under Art. II, § 1. It is part of the Constitution that only the voters, the Electors, and Congress (including for this purpose the Vice President if functioning as President of the Senate) can enforce. There should be no way for the courts to get involved.
There is no caselaw directly on this point but I would suggest starting with Powell v. McCormack (1969). There’s a good analogy between Art. II, § 1 and Art. I, § 5. It really seems to me that a court would do well to dodge the issue and let the politically-accountable branches handle it.
If you do let the courts in, then you may find yourself living in Iran, where judges get to decide who can and cannot stand for election.
Sanity - November 18, 2008 at 9:49 pm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
It’s impossible to reason with conspiracy theorists. Why bother?
nickf - November 18, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The comments by the Hawaiian officials state that they have seen the long form and that it is indeed in Hawaii. That is not the same as saying he was born in Hawaii.
Using the short-form COLB is OK to use to get a passport since you do not need to be natural born to get one.
The Constitution is a living document, we have changed it 26 times without the help of judges.
In order to change the constitution, 2/3 of congress would have to approve the change and 3/4ths of the states. You cannot say that because YOU think (and ‘you’ can figure out who you are) the requirements for natural born are archaic the rules should be changed. The reason for this is that the President is the Commander-in-Chief and should have no possiblity of conflict of interest (or as you would call it – dual citizenship). I find nothing archaic about this.
The comments about this being a right wing attempt to get rid of Obama falls in the face of all of those that have filed suit over this. Most were Dems or independents.
And finally, as in everything about this guy, we know nothing and he continues to avoid showing people anything about himself. Transparency, yeah, right.
BTW; How he can continue to dismiss this and how his supporters can continue to allow it is beyond me.
Eigernorthface - November 18, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I’ve never suggested any conspiracy in connection with the eligibility of Obama.
I’m ready to accept the idea of no involvement by the Courts. It sounds like it would be part of the Constitution. I see the analogy to Article I section 5, it seems apt and germaine.
OK so if it’s up to the Electors, I guess my question is where are they going to get their data from — what’s the machinery by means of which they will investigate this matter.
The Electors don’t have a State Department, or an FBI, or a CIA to do the fieldwork for them — how will they get it done?
Are they going to just use their intuition? Would it be something they decide from the gut?
Don’t you think it would be better for Condi Rice right now that she has my letter (green card right here in my hand) and maybe a few dozen more asking the same thing — wouldn’t it be better for her to just find out the answers?
What would it cost $100, a couple of phone calls. What would it take a day, two days?
Why does the government always have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the obvious simple right thing? Why does Berg have to sue. Why does Keyes have to sue. Why can’t somebody in the government just do their jobs — even without being sued — even without a Writ of Mandamus from the Supreme Court — just do their jobs.
No one ever expected the DNC or the FEC do any job besides taking their paychecks to the bank — that’s their job — no one thinks they are goign to do more than that. OK great — but how about a little investigative work by the State Department and the FBI and the CIA.
I’m not talking about deciding who can run for election. I’m just talking about making sure the Article II requirements are met. I’ve never offered the idea of conspiracy in any of my posts except to say that I have no suggestion along those lines. Obama is a fellow with much audacity — that’s not a conspiracy, right, to be audacious.
I want the electors to do the right thing — whether a Court tells them to do it or not. Your idea seems right to me — I’m happy to keep the courts out of it. But I’m not happy to have an inelligible man inaugurated.
The Founders wouldn’t be either in my opinion. They made Article II the way it was for a reason. Nobody should be asked to die by anyone but a fellow countryman. Any doubts about this matter undermines good order and discipline in the military. It’s a practical measure. We could call it a matter of prudence and practical ethics — like in the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) and in The Politics (Aristotle Again). Both of these books were read by the Founders.
So, keep the courts out OK — but if you do that how can you insure the Electors will do the right thing and not just let every doubt skate by. Isn’t the lazy thing what most people do most of the time unless they feel someone is there to insist on the right thing being done? Can the Electors be reliably distinguished from slackers? Will they pay attention and get it right? What resources will they command to help them do that? What would be the harm in spending $100 right now to look into the matter a bit?
I fear the Obama people doth protest too much. If they have nothing to hide, nothing to be swept under the rug, why not put the matter to rest — open up everything they have and know — let the sun shine in.
I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, but I think the whole matter is being handled in a very dumb way by just about everybody in Washington, and who plans to come to Washington. Let’s call it a parallelism of dumbness — not a conspiracy — or we could call it a mutuality of not-my-jobism where everyone agrees the question is too hot to handle — so nobody does. No conspiracy is required, only that good men do nothing, and a foreigner may wind up in the Oval Office.
This message approved by Eigernorthface 18 Nov 08 2245 hrs EST
Brett Bellmore - November 19, 2008 at 6:53 am
I really have to call BS on that ‘definition’ of conspiracy theory: You’ve, for all practical purposes, defined them as being false. The great majority of conspiracy theories are indeed false, but they are only contingently false.
It’s to be expected that most conspiracy theories will be false, because of the difficulty of keeping a large scale conspiracy secret. Exceptions do crop up, though, where there’s either a reason the conspiracy could be kept secret, or the practical equivalent thereof.
One could, for instance, formulate a ‘conspiracy theory’ that a particular law wasn’t really a law, constitutionally, because the House and Senate had not passed the identical language. This happens from time to time. The House and Senate leadership, literally, conspire to say otherwise. But the theory is not contrary to evidence, indeed, evidence can be produced that the theory is accurate.
It’s just that the courts have a doctrine that says they don’t have to LOOK at that evidence. And the press lacks any interest in reporting that a law they generally like didn’t actually comport with the procedural requirements in the Constitution.
A case came up like this last year, I believe. And the conspiracy theory is true, everybody with any power in the matter has just decided they won’t let it matter.
I think it wildly unlikely that Obama is not a natural born citizen. However, the refusal to present any of the key pieces of evidence which would take us from “wildly unlikely” to “flatly disproven” is critical, because:
1. It keeps the theory alive, because, after all, why NOT drive that stake through it’s heart if you’ve really got it to hand? The refusal naturally creates the suspicion that the theory is true.
2. The habitual acceptance on the part of the media of the refusal to definitively rebut conspiracy theories creates the very conditions under which it becomes POSSIBLE for conspiracy theories to be true, because people committing genuine conspiracies will not be exposed even if somebody notices it.
“Conspiracy theory” has become shorthand for, not for crazy allegations, but allegations which will be treated as crazy, and thus not matter even if they might be true.
A.W. - November 19, 2008 at 9:42 am
All of this discussion is just diarrhea of the keyboard and pointless.
Just release the BC already.
Yes, it is true that there is no convincing some people. But there are normal and rational people who are not willing to take ANYTHING as an article of faith. So produce proof already.
As Reagan said, “trust but verify.” So i trust he was born in america. But i want to see that Birth Certificate.
Really, the willingness of the left to excuse such a basic failure to address the controversy is just the latest example of the creepy cult-like devotion to Obama.
mrunpc - November 19, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae,
I, Bishop Ron McRae am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows:
I am the Continental Bishop who oversees the Anabaptists Churches in North America. I am also the Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery, where we have numerous churches throughout Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and mission works to several other African nations. The African Presbytery is comprised of the national bishops of the various countries we minister in and support, along with our statewide bishops from New York and Pennsylvania.
We actively visit and minister throughout these African countries, and do so extensively throughout all of Kenya these last three (3) years. in overseeing the establishment of our churches and presbytery to Kenya over the last two (2) years we have had personal dealings, continually, with many citizens of Kenya from every tribe and economic standing throughout the wonderful nation of Kenya, with whom the national interests in United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a very popular topic of discussion. The tribal cultures of the Kenyanese people have involved much turmoil during the national elections at the end of December 2007 and the beginning of 2008.
The much published violence that erupted over the presidential elections caught the world’s attention. Myself and several American minister with our church were present during this time in Kenya, and the facts concerning this strife and the ensuing violence were well known, and of common knowledge throughout all of Kenya.
The opposition party that was responsible for all of the violence was from the minority Luo tribe, which is a Muslim tribe that supported Mr. Raila Odinga for president. Raila Odinga is a Marxist socialist who graduated from the East Germany Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship from the East German government. He named his first born son after Fidel Castro. Raila Odinga spent six years in prison for his admitted involvement in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 to over take and assissinate Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya’s President. Mr. Odinga has publicly admitted to being the leader of that coup in his 2006.
Mr. Odinga is the cousin of United States Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is from the same Muslim tribe, the Luo Tribe, as Mr. Odinga. Senator Obama visited Kenya in August of 2006 and campaigned extensively for his cousin, Mr. Odinga, which gave Odinga a tremendous boost. During Senator Obama’s campaign stops on behalf of his cousin Odinga, the Senator made numerous claims against the democratic government of Kenya and Kenya’s Presidcent Mwai Kibaki, claiming they were corrupt, stating often, that Kenya was “ready for change”, just as he has campaigned here in the United States during the Presidential election. It has been common knowledge throughout Kenya that Senator Obama sent his foreign policy advisor, Mr. Mark Lippert, to Kenya at least three times to advise Mr.Odinga on his campaign strategies. See Mark Hyman’s Washington Times article published October, 12, 2008, attached as Exhibit “I”. Moreover, everyone in Kenya is well aware that Senator Obama donated over one million American dollars ($1,000,000) to his cousin’s, Mr. Odinga’s campaign, which is documented in the Kenyan Political Party, for Mr. Odinga. Orange Democratic Movement (hereinafter “ODM”) along with extensive funds from other Muslim supporters including but not limited to the Muslim son of Muammar Gadhafi, the dictator of Libyan’s Muslim government. These issues are common knowledge throughout Kenya, and the information is publicly document across the internet.
It is detailed in Odinga’s financial reports and strategies ODM Internal Memo documents, attached as Exhibit “2″, which are public records, that a significant portion of Senator Obama’s financial contributions (made through an organization identified as Friends of Senator Barack Obama) were used to help finance both the signed Muslim Memorandum of Understanding as well as the planned violence, murders and bloodshed that occurred in December of 2007. Within the ODM Internal Memo attached as Exhibit “2″, the funds donated by Mr. Obama through “Friends of Senator Barack Obama” were to be used for “Violence as a last result…to discourage voter participation in hostile areas..use ODM agents on the ground to engineer ethnic tensions in target areas…support Kapondi’s forces in Mt. Eglori”, and to do as during “Mid-December”. Unfortunately, the exact violence described in these reports was carried out and occurred at the beginning of the second week of December 2007.
Additionally, it is common knowledge throughout both the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya, that contrary to news media propaganda here in the United States, US Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii as falsely purported by the Obama campaign for presidency of the United States. Mr. Obama’s cousin ran his failed campaign for the Kenyan presidency in the identical fashion of Senator Obama’s American campaign strategy, and that being to join a nominal Christian Church in order to publicly profess to be a Christian, while maintaining their actual Muslim beliefs, in order to sway public opinion away from the actual fact of his strong Muslim beliefs, family and goals. It is a known fact that membership in the United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama was a member, does not require muslims to renounce their Islamic faith in order to join the UCC church. Throughout Kenya it is and was well publicized in the media that a Memorandum of Understanding agrement, attached as Exhibit “3″, between Raila Odinga and Shiek Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, was signed by Odinga in August 29, 2007 in which Raila Odinga promised if elected to implement drastic changes including but not limited to the following:
* Recognize “Islam as the only true religion”
* “Islamic leaders would have an oversight rule to monitor activities of ALL other religions (emphasis in the original)
* Installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction to implement Islamic law
* Implement a ban on Christian preaching
Because of the seriousness of all of the above, as a Christian and a citizen of the United States, this preacher could no longer sit idly by knowing these things and continue to minister in both Kenya and the United States. As the presiding bishop over the Continental Presbytery of Africa, I authorized representatives within our church to locate and interview Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, the actual grandmother of US Senator Barack Obama. Ms. Sarah Obama lives in the Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu, where the Anabaptists have a congregation, and where this preacher has preached several times prior to the December elections in 2007, and prior to the planned violence from the Odinga supporters, which erupted.
With Senator Obama being born in Kenya and not in the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen and it prohibits him from being eligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. Since Senator Obama’s birth was reportedly in 1961, birth records may or may not be available, so I felt it very important to obtain the testimony of his grandmother as a first hand witness, since it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especiallyaround the Kisamu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.
Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16, 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (actual name temporarily withheld to protect his life), an evangelist with our ministries traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home, see the attached email attached as Exhibit “4″. Mr. Shuhudu is a very intelligent and educated citizen of Africa, a former teacher and respected evangelist throughout Africa. Mr. Shuhudia acts as our official translator when we are in Africa, and is fluent in both Swahili and English. Mr. Shahudu met and interviewed Ms. Sarah Obama at length on October 16th during which interview, he called me on my mobile number, see my phone record attached as Exhibit “6″. Mr Shuhudia called me first on october 16th at 10:33 a.m. and advised that hwe was with Sarah Hussein Obama and that she wanted to speak with me, but the connection was lost. He called me right back at 10:35 a.m. and he informed me that there were several hundred people present, celebrating Obama’s success. I questioned him about the format of the phone call and conversation with Ms. Obama, and then informed him that I would call him right back, so it would not cost him international charges for the call. I called him back at 10:40 a.m. and public music and voices could be heard that were gathered around Kweli Shuhudia. I then spoke with him and requested that htey utilize the speaker phone so everyone could hear.
The speaker phone with its open microphone was utilized with Mr. Shuhdia, Mr. Vatalis Alec Ogombe the Kogelo Community chairman assisting in the translation work and Ms. Sarh Hussein, along with several hundred people including policemen present and listenin in the open conversation between the four of us for approximately 15 minutes. Mr. VO is also the step grandson of Ms. Obama and the cousin of Barack Obama. A third unknown party can be heard periodically interjecting both Swahili and English words in the public discussion and conversation between the four of us. At times, the room noise from other peoples’ voices makes some of the swahili difficult to hear, and towards the end of the conversation several men’s voices are heard that are not identified. As I talked to and question Ms. Obama publicly over the open microphone of Mr. S’s speaker phone, they would translate what I said to her in Swahili publicly, and then they would translate her Swahili responses to me publicly in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write. In the ensuing public conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” this was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.” Though, some few younger relatives, including Mr. Ogombe, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’ clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No, He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A transcript of this taped public interview is attached as Exhibit “6″. Mr. Shuhudia took photographs during the open conversations and interview with Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, which photos will be forthcoming.
Becase of the seriousness of the political situation and the impact of such on a United States Presidential election, and because of the factual reality of tremendous violence in kenya towards Christians, especially in the immediate area of Kisumu, where both Sarah Hussein Obama and Rev. Kweli Shuhudia live, it is requested that all reasonable and legal steps be taken to secure Rev. Kweli Shuhudia’s identity to the Federal Court alone, in order to protect his life and safety for being willing to provide this very important assistance in gathering this testimony and evidence to be used in any Federal litigation.
The above related facts are true and verifiable to the best of my personal knowledge before God Almighty, whom I am and whom I serve.
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.
by the grace of God alone,
Ron McRae
Residing Bishop
Continental Presbytery of Africa
Anabaptists Churches of N. America
mrunpc - November 19, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae,
I, Bishop Ron McRae am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows:
I am the Continental Bishop who oversees the Anabaptists Churches in North America. I am also the Presiding Elder on the African Presbytery, where we have numerous churches throughout Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and mission works to several other African nations. The African Presbytery is comprised of the national bishops of the various countries we minister in and support, along with our statewide bishops from New York and Pennsylvania.
We actively visit and minister throughout these African countries, and do so extensively throughout all of Kenya these last three (3) years. in overseeing the establishment of our churches and presbytery to Kenya over the last two (2) years we have had personal dealings, continually, with many citizens of Kenya from every tribe and economic standing throughout the wonderful nation of Kenya, with whom the national interests in United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a very popular topic of discussion. The tribal cultures of the Kenyanese people have involved much turmoil during the national elections at the end of December 2007 and the beginning of 2008.
The much published violence that erupted over the presidential elections caught the world’s attention. Myself and several American minister with our church were present during this time in Kenya, and the facts concerning this strife and the ensuing violence were well known, and of common knowledge throughout all of Kenya.
The opposition party that was responsible for all of the violence was from the minority Luo tribe, which is a Muslim tribe that supported Mr. Raila Odinga for president. Raila Odinga is a Marxist socialist who graduated from the East Germany Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship from the East German government. He named his first born son after Fidel Castro. Raila Odinga spent six years in prison for his admitted involvement in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 to over take and assissinate Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya’s President. Mr. Odinga has publicly admitted to being the leader of that coup in his 2006.
Mr. Odinga is the cousin of United States Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is from the same Muslim tribe, the Luo Tribe, as Mr. Odinga. Senator Obama visited Kenya in August of 2006 and campaigned extensively for his cousin, Mr. Odinga, which gave Odinga a tremendous boost. During Senator Obama’s campaign stops on behalf of his cousin Odinga, the Senator made numerous claims against the democratic government of Kenya and Kenya’s Presidcent Mwai Kibaki, claiming they were corrupt, stating often, that Kenya was “ready for change”, just as he has campaigned here in the United States during the Presidential election. It has been common knowledge throughout Kenya that Senator Obama sent his foreign policy advisor, Mr. Mark Lippert, to Kenya at least three times to advise Mr.Odinga on his campaign strategies. See Mark Hyman’s Washington Times article published October, 12, 2008, attached as Exhibit “I”. Moreover, everyone in Kenya is well aware that Senator Obama donated over one million American dollars ($1,000,000) to his cousin’s, Mr. Odinga’s campaign, which is documented in the Kenyan Political Party, for Mr. Odinga. Orange Democratic Movement (hereinafter “ODM”) along with extensive funds from other Muslim supporters including but not limited to the Muslim son of Muammar Gadhafi, the dictator of Libyan’s Muslim government. These issues are common knowledge throughout Kenya, and the information is publicly document across the internet.
It is detailed in Odinga’s financial reports and strategies ODM Internal Memo documents, attached as Exhibit “2″, which are public records, that a significant portion of Senator Obama’s financial contributions (made through an organization identified as Friends of Senator Barack Obama) were used to help finance both the signed Muslim Memorandum of Understanding as well as the planned violence, murders and bloodshed that occurred in December of 2007. Within the ODM Internal Memo attached as Exhibit “2″, the funds donated by Mr. Obama through “Friends of Senator Barack Obama” were to be used for “Violence as a last result…to discourage voter participation in hostile areas..use ODM agents on the ground to engineer ethnic tensions in target areas…support Kapondi’s forces in Mt. Eglori”, and to do as during “Mid-December”. Unfortunately, the exact violence described in these reports was carried out and occurred at the beginning of the second week of December 2007.
Additionally, it is common knowledge throughout both the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya, that contrary to news media propaganda here in the United States, US Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii as falsely purported by the Obama campaign for presidency of the United States. Mr. Obama’s cousin ran his failed campaign for the Kenyan presidency in the identical fashion of Senator Obama’s American campaign strategy, and that being to join a nominal Christian Church in order to publicly profess to be a Christian, while maintaining their actual Muslim beliefs, in order to sway public opinion away from the actual fact of his strong Muslim beliefs, family and goals. It is a known fact that membership in the United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama was a member, does not require muslims to renounce their Islamic faith in order to join the UCC church. Throughout Kenya it is and was well publicized in the media that a Memorandum of Understanding agrement, attached as Exhibit “3″, between Raila Odinga and Shiek Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, was signed by Odinga in August 29, 2007 in which Raila Odinga promised if elected to implement drastic changes including but not limited to the following:
* Recognize “Islam as the only true religion”
* “Islamic leaders would have an oversight rule to monitor activities of ALL other religions (emphasis in the original)
* Installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction to implement Islamic law
* Implement a ban on Christian preaching
Because of the seriousness of all of the above, as a Christian and a citizen of the United States, this preacher could no longer sit idly by knowing these things and continue to minister in both Kenya and the United States. As the presiding bishop over the Continental Presbytery of Africa, I authorized representatives within our church to locate and interview Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, the actual grandmother of US Senator Barack Obama. Ms. Sarah Obama lives in the Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu, where the Anabaptists have a congregation, and where this preacher has preached several times prior to the December elections in 2007, and prior to the planned violence from the Odinga supporters, which erupted.
With Senator Obama being born in Kenya and not in the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen and it prohibits him from being eligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States. Since Senator Obama’s birth was reportedly in 1961, birth records may or may not be available, so I felt it very important to obtain the testimony of his grandmother as a first hand witness, since it is commonly known throughout Kenya, and especiallyaround the Kisamu area, that Sarah Obama was present when Barack Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya.
Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16, 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (actual name temporarily withheld to protect his life), an evangelist with our ministries traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home, see the attached email attached as Exhibit “4″. Mr. Shuhudu is a very intelligent and educated citizen of Africa, a former teacher and respected evangelist throughout Africa. Mr. Shuhudia acts as our official translator when we are in Africa, and is fluent in both Swahili and English. Mr. Shahudu met and interviewed Ms. Sarah Obama at length on October 16th during which interview, he called me on my mobile number, see my phone record attached as Exhibit “6″. Mr Shuhudia called me first on october 16th at 10:33 a.m. and advised that hwe was with Sarah Hussein Obama and that she wanted to speak with me, but the connection was lost. He called me right back at 10:35 a.m. and he informed me that there were several hundred people present, celebrating Obama’s success. I questioned him about the format of the phone call and conversation with Ms. Obama, and then informed him that I would call him right back, so it would not cost him international charges for the call. I called him back at 10:40 a.m. and public music and voices could be heard that were gathered around Kweli Shuhudia. I then spoke with him and requested that htey utilize the speaker phone so everyone could hear.
The speaker phone with its open microphone was utilized with Mr. Shuhdia, Mr. Vatalis Alec Ogombe the Kogelo Community chairman assisting in the translation work and Ms. Sarh Hussein, along with several hundred people including policemen present and listenin in the open conversation between the four of us for approximately 15 minutes. Mr. VO is also the step grandson of Ms. Obama and the cousin of Barack Obama. A third unknown party can be heard periodically interjecting both Swahili and English words in the public discussion and conversation between the four of us. At times, the room noise from other peoples’ voices makes some of the swahili difficult to hear, and towards the end of the conversation several men’s voices are heard that are not identified. As I talked to and question Ms. Obama publicly over the open microphone of Mr. S’s speaker phone, they would translate what I said to her in Swahili publicly, and then they would translate her Swahili responses to me publicly in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write. In the ensuing public conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” this was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.” Though, some few younger relatives, including Mr. Ogombe, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’ clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No, He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A transcript of this taped public interview is attached as Exhibit “6″. Mr. Shuhudia took photographs during the open conversations and interview with Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama, which photos will be forthcoming.
Becase of the seriousness of the political situation and the impact of such on a United States Presidential election, and because of the factual reality of tremendous violence in kenya towards Christians, especially in the immediate area of Kisumu, where both Sarah Hussein Obama and Rev. Kweli Shuhudia live, it is requested that all reasonable and legal steps be taken to secure Rev. Kweli Shuhudia’s identity to the Federal Court alone, in order to protect his life and safety for being willing to provide this very important assistance in gathering this testimony and evidence to be used in any Federal litigation.
The above related facts are true and verifiable to the best of my personal knowledge before God Almighty, whom I am and whom I serve.
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.
by the grace of God alone,
Ron McRae
Residing Bishop
Continental Presbytery of Africa
Anabaptists Churches of N. America
Eigernorthface - November 19, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Let me see if I get this straight, the mother from Kansas goes to school in Hawai’i where she meets a guy from Kenya whom she marries and has a child by. Then she divorces the Kenya guy, and marries a guy from Indonesia. Then she takes the child (Obama) to Indonesia, where he attends Indonesian school. Then at age 20 he travels to Pakistan on an Indonesian Passport. Then he shows up in Southside Chicago — he goes to Columbia then Harvard Law School, then comes back to Southside to work as a community organizer. Then he’s elected to the Illinois Legislature — then the U.S. Senate — then possibly the Preesidency of the USA.
What does this sound like to you? Does it sound anything like a conspiracy? Doesn’t it sound more like a crazy quilt topsy turvy existential kaliedoscope of happenstance?
I never heard a story that sounded less like a conspiracy than the Obama story. His story is much more like the perils of Pauline than like the Manchurian Candidate. It’s a farrago of fantastic bouncing around almost like a lotto ball in the plexiglas air box — that’s not how conspiracies go.
Conspiracy means intentional, carefully planned, meticulously organized — Obama is an organized guy, but his life story is more like a lotto ball than like a conspirator.
I think that there’s a better than 50% chance that he was actually born in Hawai’i. That’s not enough to make him a natural born citizen. The rules in Hawai’i in 1961 were not the same as the rules in El Paso today. The mother would have to meet a certain residency requirement — a certain amount of time that she was a resident in the US prior to the birth for Obama to automatically become a US citizen just by being born in Hawai’i in 1961.
When she took him to Indonesia as a minor child under her care custody and control and became an Indonesian citizen herself by marrying an Indonesian man, after her divorce from the Kenya guy (Obama Sr.), Obama Jr. would conditionally have become an Indonesian citizen.
But if you have US citizenship — which maybe Obama Jr. did before being taken to Indonesia, you can’t lose it involuntarily — just by being dragged along with your mother to Indonesia.
On the other hand, in 1981, Obama was no longer a minor. He represented himself as an Indonesian when he entered Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He was not kidnapped and taken to Pakistan. He was not mentally unfit. He was an adult travelling voluntarily and fully responsible for his own conduct. That conduct constitutes self-expatriation. The self-expatriation was reversable — he could come back and take the Oath of Allegiance and restore his US citizenship if he ever really had the right to that citizenship. That’s the document we need to see, the file record that shows Obama restoring his citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance.
Without that, there is strong evidence that he is not a citizen, and no evidence that he is a citizen. This is true regardless of what paperwork is ever found or authenticated about the place of his birth. Even if they find the long form vault copy of his birth certificate with doctor, nurse, or midwife signature on it.
If Obama is not a citizen, it doesn’t matter what lawsuits are filed. Any of the three branches of government are fully capable of telling the man he cannot be inaugurated. The best branch in this case is not the judicial branch — it is the legislative branch via the Electoral College.
The problem comes because the Electors are in a very poor position to do a proper investigation. They don’t have the time, the talent, or the resources. Condi Rice really ought to do the investigation — she can call Indonesia and Pakistan, and she can check her own files at the State Dept.
When the Electors meet the Chair will be the President of the Senate. He gets to open the votes and count them. He also has to certify the eligibility of the person designated as the winner. This should be done in the legislature, not in the courts (see also Article I section 5, which deals with a parallel issue in the legislature itself).
The facts are all that matter here — not which branch tells Barack he’s not the President — any branch will do — the legislature would be best, Condi can be helpful, by doing a proper investigation using her unique position. She has the duty because she’s in position to do the job — no American could do it more efficiently given the specific facts that need to be looked into in this case.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 1724 hrs EST 19 Nov 2008
Bev - November 19, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing. They claim that a tape recording of a long-distance telephone call with Obama’s grandmother proves that he was born in Kenya.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The man who was with her during the interview (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya. Or, she could simply be wishing that she had been there when Obama was born. Or, she could simply be confused. It is not evidence.”
Posted by: smrstrauss at November 17, 2008 04:43 PM
Did you not realize that the Government of Kenya sealed ALL records on Barack O’Bama till after the election.
Ever ask yourself why that occurred? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together.
Eigernorthface - November 19, 2008 at 8:12 pm
For the record let me re-say. If any part of Obama’s qualifications depend in any way on persons from Kenya, or any other foreign nation that does not have a tradition of science (here are the ones that do — All of old Europe plus Japan and China), then all the foreign affiants testimony should count as null — nothing, nada, nihil — I would not take it — why would you? I don’t care it’s the Archbishop of Mumbo Jumbo or the Pope of Mumbo Jumbo. It’s Mumbo Jumbo and we are Americans — and that sort of stuff does not get into our electoral process.
Here’s what counts.
1. Obama did or did not travel to Pakistan in 1981.
2. He did or did not do this on an Indonesian passport.
3. He was or was not 20 years old at the time, not a kidnapped person, not a minor, not a mentally infirm person.
4. He did or did not re-claim his US citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance as required by law.
These are four tiny litte facts not so inconceivable to verify one way or the other that a 100 Trillion dollar per year government could not possibly find $100 to go verify these facts one way or the other.
And yet, somehow, we can’t. The interest just is not there. We don’t care. We don’t know. It’s just too hard. Just send us some “share the wealth” kind of thing — maybe $500 or $1000 per month — we don’t know — we don’t care — just keep it coming.
That’s what I’m up against. Do I expect to win? Yes, I do! And my most earnest hope is to win in the Electoral College and not in the courts. It would be very wrong for American courts to meddle in here and tell us who can and cannot run for office — that’s how Pakistan and Iran and Iraq are run. We have a different system.
Let Condi Rice get the facts. Let the President of the Senate know the facts. Let all the candidates be told truthfully and with verity if they are elligible. Let the non-eligible candidates step back. Let the eligible candidate with most votes in the Electoral College step forward. Let us inaugurate the right person.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 2000 hours 19 November 2008
nickf - November 19, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Eigernorthface,
I don’t think it works the way you ended your statement. The 20th amendment was passed for the following reason. It was passed so that a lame duck Congress that may have been voted out could not elect the President.
When the language of the Amendment mentions qualified, they are not talking about qualified in Article II as natural born or over 35. They are talking about qualified as in having 50% +1 of the electoral college.
So there is no way that McCain would become ‘qualified’ because he would not have had over 50% of the electoral votes.
This is the problem with the whole affair. If you elect someone who is not qualified (as in Article II) for the Presidency, is his VP qualified? Since we don’t really vote for VP, my guess is no. So at that point, we would either have the House dictate the next President or we would have to have a do-over.
While the Constitution tells us who is qualified, it sets no recourse if someone is elected that is not qualified. If that person was ineligible, can they even be impeached, since I don’t think he really is the President. This is what makes his intransigency in this so incredibly bad it verges on treason. If he is natural born, this whole thing is because he is demonstrating a lack of what he said his admin would promote and that is transparency. If he is not, his actions are criminal and he should be held accountable in some way.
The other side of this is that I don’t think Condi Rice is the person that should investigate this. I also think the courts are the place to do this. The reason I say this is the following:
1) If Condi does it and says that no, he isn’t natural born, who on the left will believe her. It would be the opposite of what we have now.
2) We need a bi-partisan group to look at this. This is why I would like to see it either in SCOTUS or somewhere like the Senate Ethics Committee.
3) Natural born is also not really defined in the Constitution. I think a court needs to be involved to determine what are the actual laws involved.
A.W. - November 20, 2008 at 3:42 pm
One last time:
“Trust but verify.”
Obama was probably born in the US, but i want verification.
So… why not just release the damned thing already?
bill - November 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm
@Eigernorthface: Ever been to LDCs in Africa or South Asia?
I have. There is no way to “verify” these supposed facts that occured decades ago.
There are ways to waive around $$$ and get people to say things either way.
There is no point to this inquiry. Any proof or smoking gun would likely be manufactured to earn the equivalent of a lifetime’s wage in those places.
In particular, Pakistan has absolutely no tradition of professional administration or non-corrupt governance.
smrstrauss - November 20, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Re: And if Obama was willing to provide the laser-printed short form to FactCheck.org and to post it on the Obama website, then there’s no reason not to provide a certified copy of the original long form to FactCheck.org and post that on the Obama website as well.
Absolutely. I quite agree with you. IF FactCheck.org and/or Polifact.com, both of which received copies of the certification of live birth, were to ask to see the original birth certificate and Obama refused to give it to them, then we could truly say that he had refused to give his birth certificate to someone who asked for it.
The same would hold for any newspaper or wire service or network. But, so far as I know, none of these has asked to see the document.
I do not see why Obama should give someone his original birth certificate unless and until they ask to see it. (So, if you have a friend in the news media, get him or her to ask for a copy, and then we will know.)
Eigernorthface - November 20, 2008 at 4:50 pm
To Nickf: Thanks for your excellent comments — totally on point and food for thought. Here are my initial thoughts about what you’ve said:
1. If Obama is determined to be non-qualified in the Article II sense, then some of his electors might be free to vote for McCain as the next best choice right? If that happened, McCain could wind up with the majority of the electors plus one, right?
2. Similarly, they could go for Biden — sort of a draft Biden movement in the Electoral College. If Biden agrees, then he could come out with a majority plus one, and I guess he gets to name his Number 2 — which could be anybody, including even John McCain, if McCain wants that job, right?
3. They also could go for Hillary — she obviously wants the top job — if she got 90% of the Electors pledged to Obama, and 15% of the Electors pledged to McCain, she could wind up with a majority plus one right?
4. We do really vote for Vice President. It doesn’t count much in our minds, but it’s legally there on the ballot. The Obama pledged Electors are also pledged to Biden. So maybe Cy Pres would apply — they could just slide on over to vote Biden as Prez.
5. A do-over is not realistic in my humble opinion, but if that’s what the powers that be want, it sounds fair enough. I just don’t know if it’s practical.
6. Having the House decide sounds fair enough — is that what the Constitution requires if an ineligible person holds most of the Electors — I honestly do not know — but someone here might and could help us out on this.
7. On Condi doing the investigation and doing it right now I think you are incorrect about that. She would be the ideal person, because of the very practical reason that she could get to the real data faster and cheaper than any other American — a lot of it is right there in her office — the State Department after all must have some idea of who the US citizens are — if they don’t who would?
8. She doesn’t have to be the final word. She could just go get the data. The data speaks for itself. Who should it speak to?
9. I’m for the Electoral College as who it should speak to. Another poster on this site put the idea into my head that it’s only in places like Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan that the Courts play a very active role in saying who can and who cannot run for office. Article I section 5, which is sort of parallel to the present case, plus Article II about the Electoral College — my sense is that the intent of the Founders was that certain political questions are non-justiciable — that means that it’s not our style of government to have Courts decide them — our style is that some things must be wholly decided in a single branch, and not a process of checks and balances between branches, which could easily turn into a toxic feedback loop (like in Pakistan).
10. One final possibility is that come Inauguration Day, George W Bush and Dick Cheney could both resign a few hours before noon, Nancy Pelosi could step up as next in line. She would then be President by Constitutional succession. She would then be inaugurated simply by taking the Oath of Office as President. I don’t know how the Vice Presidency would be filled, possibly by appointment by the President, possibly by having the next in of succession fleet up with the Speaker of the House, or possibly by election by the House.
11. The whole idea of the Obama Campaign was change — big change. That’s the kind of situation where no doubt can be allowed to remain about the lawfulness of the President — whether or not for example he might be a foreigner, or otherwise ineligible under our Constitution. This matter would not go away. It would grow if any doubt remained on Inauguration Day.
12. That’s why Condi Rice needs to step in and get the real facts now. She should be going to the Federal Courts to get court orders that compel Obama to cooperate fully, to be deposed under oath, to turn over every scrap of paper he has relating to this matter, to appear before a Grand Jury if necessary. I agree with you that his stonewalling is very dumb, very destructive, if not criminal. I think the matter can be taken out of his hands — where’s the Attorney General while all this is happening? He and Condi should be working all out to get the facts on the table the the Electors can do the right thing — whatever that thing may be.
Eigernorthface approved this message 20 Nov 2008 1647 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 20, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Oh. Sorry. The previous was not complete.
You can say that the lawsuits have asked to see the original birth certificate, so why not give it to the ones who filed the lawsuits?
That is not quite the same thing. In these suits, the plaintiffs are demanding the right to see his private files, not requesting a copy. So naturally he is defending his right of privacy over the document. That means he is defending the right to keep it secret. But by doing that, it does not mean that he would refuse to give out his original birth certificate if he were asked for it nicely.
So, as I say, I think the idea would be to get someone in the news media to ask for it.
smrstrauss - November 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Re: “it’s not a complete fantasy for Keyes to see a small probability that Obama was born in Kenya. His parents, after all, were on summer vacation in 1961, and why wouldn’t the mother want to visit the father’s homeland?”
It’s not a fantasy, but it is a VERY slim possiblity.
To be sure, the young couple might have wanted to visit his parents in Kenya, but NOT in the ninth month of pregnancy. They would have gone before or after, if at all. You had to get Yellow Fever shots to go to Africa in those days, and it would have been a long, long trip on the airlines those days — no direct flights from Hawaii to Kenya. And then, of course, IF they did go to Kenya, they would have wanted to travel around and see the sights, which would have been difficult in the ninth month of pregnancy. And finally, IF they went to Kenya, there would most likely be some photos of the couple with their family and the infant with his grandparents.
So, very unlikely.
smrstrauss - November 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Re: As this theory goes, Obama’s decadent hippy mom falsely “registered” his birth in Hawaii, using the so-called “short form by declaration” method (look it up) which was legal in Hawaii thru 1972, and could be legally executed based on only the testimony of the parent, with no evidence or doctor’s statement or hospital record.
As I understand it, from the discussion following the statements by the Hawaii officials, you could get a birth certificate by declaration at the time, but you could not get a birth certificate that said that you were born in Hawaii. Obama’s certification of live birth says that he was born in Hawaii. (It says it three times.) And, the officials have confirmed the certification. And they did it by looking in the files. IF the files they were looking at were only the short-form by declaration, it would not be proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. But they say that the certification is valid. For that to be true, they must have seen something that shows that he was born in Hawaii.
smrstrauss - November 20, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Re: I think it’s HILARIOUS that the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper serves as “proof enough” for some people. That’s honestly one of the most short-sighted things I’ve ever heard. And I’ve been hearing it more and more….
Apparently it was NOT a birth announcement, which is an ad. There is a report that the newspapers in Hawaii did not take these very short advertisements at the time.
Instead, the birth notice came right from the Vital Records department of the Hawaii government, which published them at the time as a matter of record — published by sending out the information to the newspapers.
Here is the report that I base this on:
Hi, I’ve talked to the Department of Vital Records ((in Hawaii)) and the Honolulu Advertiser.
In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the newspaper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition.
This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. ((If you look, you can see that there were ads in the announcements, for Luau Equipment and other stuff, but the notices are separated from the ads.) And the section is headed “Health Bureau Statistics.”))
At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.
Next, the announcement is from Sunday, August 13th and Obama was born on Friday, August 4th. Hospitals usually don’t take birth certificate information the first couple days to avoid changes. So it was likely filled out on the 4th or so, as hospital stays were usually 3 – 5 days at the time.
Lastly, having worked in a newborn nursery in college, hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement.
In Honolulu at the time, paid birth announcements weren’t in vogue. Frequently families would post one year announcements that included pictures from the party, etc. I haven’t checked to see if that exists.”
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/
Bill - November 20, 2008 at 7:33 pm
smrstrauss,
the short form by declaration allowed you to fill in whatever you wanted as to place of birth, parents, race etc,. without checking. You simply had to declare it was true, I don’t know if you had to swear on a Bible or anything.
the long form must either not exist or say something incriminating or the Obama camp would have released it by now.
smrstrauss - November 20, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Re “Obama’s Kenya Grandmom has testified that Obama was born in Kenya;”
No she did not testify or swear an affidavit. She was asked whether she was present when Obama was born, and she said yes. I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that she understood the question. And, of course, the interviewer failed to ask anything of a confirming nature to the simple “yes.”
I mean, if someone says yes to “Obama was born in Brooklyn,” you would ask questions to show that (1) the person understood the question, and (2) that he or she knows what they are talking about. In this case, questions like: “How long were Obama’s parents in Kenya before the birth?” “How long did you stay in Monbassa before the birth?” “How long was the wait in the waiting room before the birth? “Do you remember the name of the doctor?” “How many days did Obama’s mother spend in the hospital before she left?” and, most importantly, “can you show me a photograph of Obama’s mother in Kenya or of Obama with his grandparents?”
Re: “The Kenyan government will not admit if there is or is not an Obama birth record on file in Kenya, and they have denied all access to any Kenya government records relating to Obama.”
This is all based on Corsi’s stories. No confirmed report from the main-stream media, or a Kenyan newspaper, says that there is anything unusual going on with files in Kenya. I recall that the Kenyan government doesn’t even like Obama very much, because he campaigned for an opponent of the government when he as in Kenya. Moreover, it makes a complicated conspiracy – because it holds that BOTH the Kenyan government and the government in Hawaii are lying or covering up.
Re: “The long form vault record in Hawaii, if it exists, has allegedly not been examined, and Obama has refused to allow it to be examined.”
If you mean that the long-form vault record has not left the government records, you are right. However, the long-form vault record was looked at by the officials in Hawaii when they issued the statement that t he certification of live birth was valid. So, it exists, and it shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Re: “Obama has refused to allow it to be examined.” No he has not. There are lawsuits demanding the right to see his birth records. It is not even clear that Obama has his own lawyers fighting these suits. The suits are opposed by the government in Hawaii, which argues that there is a right of privacy in this case. In the other cases, the defendants are not only Obama but the US government in the Berg case, and the state of California in the Keyes case. It is a very different thing in opposing someone who says that she has a right to see your birth records, and not giving them to someone in the media who asks for them nicely. As I posted earlier, we have not tried the nice approach, so we cannot say that Obama “refused.”
Re: “The paper that you see on FactCheck and Obama’s web site (The laser print job) is a recently produced certificate of life birth. (“COLB”) It was printed on an old style 25 pound bond 8.5” X 11” security paper known as “Check Protect, Basket Weave Pattern, Green”
Yes, it is a recent document. It was generated by the State of Hawaii when the COLB was asked for, which was about a year ago, I think. Why should it be on old paper? As to the allegation that it was forged, FactCheck and Polifact called the officials in Hawaii and asked about that, and the officials said that as far as they could tell – since all they could see was an image of the paper – it is an authentic document. And they confirmed that they sent a COLB to Obama, and then finally they issued a statement that says that they looked into the files and the COLB is accurate based on what they saw in the files.
This report from a right-wing blog in Hawaii is a short way of explaining this:
“Obama’s birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture.”: (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx)
Re: “Kenya has publicly declared that all of Mr. Obama’s documents are locked up in a vault.”
I will believe this if you can show a report from a newspaper or wire service and NOT from Corsi.
Re:
“Um, that is a reason why he doesn’t HAVE TO release the documents. But, you haven’t explained why he shouldn’t do it.
Just release the documents already. Frankly, the only reason I have any suspicions about him on this count is because he refuses to do it. innocent men don’t lawyer up.”
As I said, there is a difference between someone asking you for your birth records nicely and someone demanding them in a lawsuit. If someone demands something, the usual response is to fight the demand. It is different that someone claims to have a RIGHT to see your private documents, which you fight, and someone asking to see them nicely. I do not believe that someone has asked to see them nicely.
Re: mean hell, it isn’t like he has better things to do. He just quit his old job, and his new job doesn’t start for another 2 months. So rummage around and find the thing already.
Re: “I mean hell, it isn’t like he has better things to do. He just quit his old job, and his new job doesn’t start for another 2 months. So rummage around and find the thing already.”
Well, I do think that picking the best Secretary of the Treasury and advising his former senate colleagues not to take the chairmanship of that committee away from Lieberman constitutes work. And some other things like whether to bail out GM.
Re: “By the way, who do you expect to ask for the birth certificate?”
How about the AP, or UPI (it still exists, though small). Or one of the Hawaii newspapers?
Re: Again, just release it. Why not?
I think this earlier posting expresses it much better than I can:
“Why? Why be bullied by fringe idiots like Keyes or Phil Berg, whose last big lawsuit was against George Bush for letting 9/11 happen? (Fire has never melted steel, you see.)
If I was Obama, I’d leave this stuff “hanging” (if that’s even the right word, as official Hawai’i legal documents disprove Keyes) just to district and piss off the mouthbreathers. If they weren’t butting their heads against this wall they might be doing something more dangerous.”
And, as I said, we do not really know that Obama knows that there is this issue on the blogs, and if so, whether the issue is any more important than, say, whether there are Martians preserved in Rosewell NM.
Re: “The fact that Obama’s birth was announced in the Hawaii newspaper means nothing. My father was in the military but was born and raised in Virginia. I was born when he was stationed in Mississippi. My parents did not announce my birth in Mississippi. They announced my birth in the small Virginia town where my father grew up.”
Yes, but apparently it was not a birth announcement as in your case, an advertisement. It was a birth notice from the government, as shown above.
Eigernorthface - November 20, 2008 at 8:08 pm
1. Obama either does or does not have any paperwork that would be helpful beyond what he has already provided. I suspect he does not.
2. Some Department of the U.S. government, perhaps State, perhaps Justice either does or does not have an official governmental interest in finding out where Obama was born, where he travelled, and on what passports, and at what ages. I suspect there is at least one Department that has such an official interest, probably two.
3. A subpoena either can or cannot be issued to compel Obama to show all that he can show to shed light on these matters. I suspect a subpoena could be issued if anybody in an official position gave a rat’s ass about getting to the facts in this matter.
4. In the absence of laying the groundwork by a careful and timely investigation, the Electors will or will not be groping blindly in the dark to do the right thing. I suspect that we are a reactive nation not a proactive nation — Kattrina has to hit first, then two years later we begin to respond, so I think the Electors will be groping blindly in the dark wanting to do “right” but having no clue as to what that might be, and no way to get a clue, and no time to get a clue — like the AG and Secretary of State have ways and time now.
5. After Obama’s inauguration this whole issue either will or will not just blow over. I suspect it will not — every order he gives will be legally questioned, every Bill he signs. If Obama is a foreigner then he can never legally be President. The cost-sparing thing would be to find out one way or the other before he is installed in Office.
6. Berg and Keyes either do or do not have the clout and the right to get the job done. I suspect that even if they got together in a single lawsuit, the suit would be barred by the doctrine of the non-justiciable political question, the Supreme Court would bag out just like State and Justice are doing now.
7. The American people either give a rat’s ass about getting this right or they don’t. I suspect they don’t — they may be a few dozen bloggers out there in cyberspace who really care one way or the other, but that’s it. Well over 99.99% don’t care. They are busy trying to cope with a severe recession, put food on the table, pay the rent, or the mortgage. They hope that maybe Obama could bring about a “change” — maybe they could get something out of it. They are fatalistic, disconnected, alienated, cynical, mentally inert, intellectually asleep, civically AWOL — they just don’t know/don’t care (DKDC the new societal modality).
8. Historians either will or will not realize that the “troubles” in the Obama Administration could have been avoided by certain government officials doing their obvious duty — a timely and proactive investigative process laying the groundwork for a sure and certain outcome from the Electoral College proceedings. I suspect that historians will twig to this point, sometime around 2050 — they will start to write papers about it, maybe even books, or doctoral dissertations. To the ones who say rational things at that time — my hat’s off to them .. better late than never, I guess.
The message was approved by Eigernorthface 20 November 2008 2005 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 21, 2008 at 12:16 am
Re: “Does this mean that the Electors are free to be 100% perfectly negligent about making sure a candidate is eligible?”
As you know, we have had 43 presidents before this one, and even more elections, and even more candidates for president than presidents. And, of course, we’ve vice presidents and candidates for vice president too. Until this year, did the electors ever consider the matter of whether ANY of them was born in the USA? Did they ask to see birth certificates? So, I suppose the history is that they have been negligent.
Now, why is this year any different than the past?
Re: “Could they, for example, just glance at a purported document offered up on the internet, and then proclaim themselves to be fully satisfied, no further inquiries needed.”
Or, more likely, could they just vote without looking at anything? The answer is YES? Yes, always in the past they did not look at anything, and so far there’s no indication that they will look at anything this year.
If you want to convince them to do some looking, you will have to convince them that there is something different about this year. Don’t tell me; tell the electors. Show some real evidence, not theories about maybe Obama lost citizenship or maybe he was born in Kenya.
Re: “I would suggest that the Electors must behave as reasonable persons in order to escape judicial review of their actions.”
Yes, they have been reasonable in the past, by not looking at anything, and there has never been a judicial review relating to proof of citizenship. Do you think that they are worried this year? Why? So far they don’t know that there is anything different from the years when they did not look at the birth certificates of FDR, JFK, Nixon or anybody.
Re: “The Supreme Court should head off the crisis by hearing the Berg case on its merits, and if the merits are good enough, directing that a proper investigation be done — probably led by Condi Rice with the assistance of the Attorney General.”
I’ll bet they won’t act.
Eigernorthface - November 21, 2008 at 1:33 pm
To: smrstrauss:
I would not bet against you. I think a 3 way punt is the most likely outcome in the short term: Condi punts, Mukaysey punts, the Supremes punt.
Nobody really does anything unless there’s a boss there to make them do it. These people don’t have any bosses. So they probably won’t do anything — smr — I think we see this about the same — bottomline-wise.
I’ve not won every battle in my life — 25 years as a Federal lawyer, you win some you lose some. In this case I’ve tried to take the low-cost, low-conflict respectful petition route. Rational patriots don’t always get what they ask for. But when they are simply shoved aside by the powers that be, there’s often a price to be paid down the road.
I still think the judicial route is not the best.
If the Supremes grant cert on 1 Dec or shortly thereafter, and hear Berg on the merits of his standing case sometime in January, and remand the case back to Judge Surrick, sometime in February, then I think Surrick will say “Yea, OK he’s got standing, but this is a non-justiciable political question, case dismissed (again) — go away little man, see what the Supremes say now”.
Victory is the ball. You have to keep your eye on the ball.
The facts are 1000 times stronger than anything else that might affect this case. Therefore getting the facts by a proper, thorough, and timely investigation is the key to victory.
Who could do that? Condi Rice and AG Mukasey. They are the one’s who could get the facts, using adminstrative orders, Grand Juries, Subpoenas, the FBI, State Department Intelligence, and US Diplomats overseas.
So, what needs to happen is that the fact getters need to be petitioned (massively) to go get the facts, and have them ready in case the Electoral College is interested in the facts.
There will be a few electors who probably will care whether or not the person declared the winner is in fact eligible to be President. Somebody in that College — which will be chaired by the President of the Senate will say “Well are there any facts available on this matter?”
If Condi and Mukasey have done there jobs, there will be. If not, the electors will be groping blindly in the dark, with no time and no resources, no talent, and no personnel to get the facts.
So they will have to operate without facts. Maybe the DNC can come in and show the COLB, or maybe just send it to the Electors, via the internet.
We will make do with whatever is possible.
But the issue won’t go away. If Obama and Biden are inaugurated, then Biden would take over if Obama is later shown to be ineligible — that is clear in the Constitution. A lot of people think Joe Biden would make a wonderful President.
So if Obama slides in because nobody got the data together in time to prevent it, he would be subject to impeachment from day one, or as soon as the facts emerge clearly — and there would be plenty of motivation to go ahead and remove him from office, if that means Joe Biden steps up.
I don’t have any political goals in this matter. My only goal is the orderly conduct of the Federal government. That is best served by a fully informed Electoral College, so the right person gets inaugurated in the first place, and we start on January 20 2009 with a secure and well-founded new administration. Most of G.W. Bush’s cabinet would probably have to stay for 90 days, until their replacements could be found and cleared and confirmed. No big deal on that.
What would it cost Condi and Mukasey to just go get the facts now? Very little. Almost nothing. If the facts show that Obama is a US citizen, what would become of the investigative file? Nothing at all, it would go to the Archives. It would just say the same thing that is officially presumed to be true — so it has no surprize value — no real information content — at least nothing new that makes a difference.
The electors may or may not want to see the file. They may just read an Executive Summary — “Investigation was done by Sect’y State and AG and concludes that Obama is eligible”. They wouldn’t get eyestrain reading such an executuive summary — they wouldn’t have to set up special reading rooms. That could go on a 3 by 5 card. They could read it in less than 10 seconds.
As between the people who are petitioning for a full and fair investigation and Condi Rice (+the AG), who has got the problem? Are the petitoners all wearing little tin hats? Or, are the powers that be grossly and outrageously derelict in their obvious duty?
It comes down to a question of balance of costs and balance of harms — you remember that from tort law right. The party with the least harm and the lowest costs is the one who should alter their conduct — in other words Condi and Mukasey go do the investigation, don’t just sit there, hoping it all blows over, or that none of the Electors will care.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 21 Nov 2008 13:32 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Re: “I think a 3 way punt is the most likely outcome in the short term: Condi punts, Mukaysey punts, the Supremes punt.”
I agree with you completely.
Re: “The facts are 1000 times stronger than anything else that might affect this case. Therefore getting the facts by a proper, thorough, and timely investigation is the key to victory.”
I agree with you completely.
Re: “Who could do that? Condi Rice and AG Mukasey. They are the one’s who could get the facts, using adminstrative orders, Grand Juries, Subpoenas, the FBI, State Department Intelligence, and US Diplomats overseas.”
I agree with you that they COULD, though I do not think that they will. Mukasey may not be in the best of shape after collapsing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7742787.stm). He was taken to the hospital and released. But he is probably still weak. Condi is a diplomat, not an investigator.
Re: “So, what needs to happen is that the fact getters need to be petitioned (massively) to go get the facts, and have them ready in case the Electoral College is interested in the facts.”
This might work, but I think that there is a better way (though you can do both, of course).
The better way, I think, though I do not agree with you about Obama being not eligible to be president, is for you and others like you to form and fund an organization that will do the investigation.
Personally, I think that Obama is eligible (and I think that the idea that his mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy is laughable). BUT, I think you have every right to investigate, and I think you (the organization of course) should do so, and I think you should be encouraged to investigate. IF facts come out that prove that I was wrong, I welcome the fact that I was PROVEN wrong.
But, please, real investigations. Not telephone interviews with grandmothers. Send your investigators to Kenya. Have them look at the files. If, as Corsi says, (but I do not believe it), the files have been sealed by the Kenyan government, then a certain amount of bribery is the solution. IF there are facts there, they can be found. Corsi is really not an investigator. His giving a press conference in Kenya shows that he was more interested in talking than in finding things out.
The grandmother really wasn’t questioned very well. IF she is telling the truth and is not mislead about Obama being born in Kenya (which I do not believe), then she would have or would know where to get some photographs of Obama in Kenya or of Obama’s mama in Kenya. And she could show those photographs, and they could be copied.
Over on the Hawaii front, I suspect a certain amount of bribery might get the documents you seek, but watch out, this is far more dangerous. If your investigator can be proven to have bribed an official, he or she would go to jail. Personally, I don’t think that the documents will show anything, but it is really up to your organization.
Over on the fronts of the more complicated cases, the ones that stem on Obama having dual nationality or having lost citizenship because of travels to Pakistan, or both, I am sure that the organization can find out necessary facts as well, if they exist.
Good luck, and all that kind of stuff. But, please, don’t expect me to believe anything unless solid proof is shown.
Re: “Somebody in that College — which will be chaired by the President of the Senate will say “Well are there any facts available on this matter?”
It is amusing to think that the Electoral College all gets together, but they don’t. The electors meet and vote in their states.
Re: “So if Obama slides in because nobody got the data together in time to prevent it, he would be subject to impeachment from day one, or as soon as the facts emerge clearly — and there would be plenty of motivation to go ahead and remove him from office, if that means Joe Biden steps up.”
Yes it would be Biden. The impeachment would be more difficult, with an overwhelmingly Democratic House and Senate. In addition to proving that Obama was not eligible, you would have to prove that he knew about that fact and conspired to hide it. That would be a crime.
Re: “The electors may or may not want to see the file. They may just read an Executive Summary — “Investigation was done by Sect’y State and AG and concludes that Obama is eligible”. They wouldn’t get eyestrain reading such an executuive summary — they wouldn’t have to set up special reading rooms. That could go on a 3 by 5 card. They could read it in less than 10 seconds.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. The electors would only want to know if Obama was NOT eligible. Getting a card saying “he is eligible” would produce the reaction: “Yes, that’s what we thought all along.” So only information that he is NOT eligible would be of interest. But, as I say, it can’t be an opinion that he is not eligible, it has to be grounded on facts that cannot be questioned, facts that can be shown. (Not, “the WMDs are there for sure. It’s a slam dunk.”)
Bottom line, don’t count on bureaucrats. Ask them to investigate, sure. But don’t count on them. IF there are facts that can be found, investigators can find them.
Eigernorthface - November 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Having served as an international lawyer for the Navy in the Philippines and in Africa, I agree with your assessment of the “evidence” from Kenya completely. Foreign witnesses, interrogated unskillfully, by reporters hoping to get a sensational scoop have no value in this matter. I count the grandmother’s evidence at nought.
I have repeatedly said I think there is a better than 50% chance Obama was born in Hawai’i. You tell me that officials there have looked at the vault records and confirm that the COLB is substantively accurate — OK I accept that.
When I was 20 years old, I knew better than to travel on a foreign passport and offer myself as an Indonesian. I knew that would constitute an abandonment of my American citizenship.
At the minimum Mr. Strauss I think you would have to agree it constitutes a “false official statement”.
Berg tells us that a person doing such an act — going to Pakistan and entering on an Indonesian passport can restore their US citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance. That sounds right. Berg, may be a little whacky, but he was the Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, so he probably knows how to find the law.
So then, it’s a matter of fact. Did Obama at any time after his visit to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport take the Oath of Allegiance? It’s a “yes” or “no” question.
Should Condi answer it, or should I? Well, Condi has the data. She’s not an investigator, but she has hundreds of investigators working for her at the State Department. She could get more from Mukasey and the FBI. I, on the other hand have no duty, no organization, no access to the data, no resources. So, I say Condi and Mukasey should do the job.
Now you tell me that the electors don’t actually meet in the Congress — they just sort of send in their votes after meeting in the states. Well then I guess it’s pretty hopeless to expect them to do any investigation, right?
The business of the Oath of Allegiance is, perhaps a technicality. But when the Commandeer in Chief orders men into battle, that just based a technicality too — the mere technicality that he happens to be the Commander in Chief, right?
I have never said that Obama offerred himslf as a candidate, knowing that he was not an American. As you say, that would be a crime. It would require criminal mens rea. I have have said that Obama’s early life was a kaliedoscope of happenstance — no sort of conspiracy — more like a lotto ball in the plexiglas airbox. So I’m not suggesting criminal mens rea.
But I think Berg may have the technicality right — Obama is not an American under the law.
Even if this mattered to the electors, they will be in no position to do anything about it.
But Condi and Mukasey right now are in a position to find out. Start here “Barack, after you travelled to Pakistan, did you ever take the oath of allegiance to restore your US citizenship, and if so where di you do that?”
Then go here: “Hello, Clerk of Court, would you please check the historical files of your Court (or Consulate, or Legation) to see if Barack Obama aka any of his other half dozen names, ever took the Oath of Allegiance there? He says he did, and approximately on this date “……”
It’s a question of authority, I just don’t have the authority to get the answers. Condi and Mukasey do (he has a Deputy by the way, in case he’s feeling ill or infirm, which I understand he’s not).
The officials have the authority, the access, the position, and the resources. If I had these things, I would get the job done in 72 hours or less — no persons in Kenya would be involved — this is simple records check — a few phone calls, and somebody goes and looks in a file — an American file — no muss, no fuss, no bother — no drama for Obama.
Any organization that would have someone like me for a member, I don’t know that I could join. Not only do I not have an organization, I’m not a member of any organization, church, political party, or even local Bar Association. The only memberships I have are in the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court and a few Federal and Circuit Courts, and COMA. Sort of a non-joiner. When I put my little tinfoil hat on, I do it all by myself.
I’m looking for the low energy path here — the low cost low conflict path. Just ask the right fact getters to get the facts and do it now while it’s timely and cost sparing. Berg is either right, or he’s not about the expatriation issue.
The problem with letting it slide is that it won’t stay slid. It will rattle around in the Courts until somebody gets to the bottom of it. If Berg has the law wrong, now would be a good time to point that out. If Berg’s facts are mistaken, now would be a good time to show that.
Let’s start with Obama born in Hawai’i. Let’s proceed to Obama has never had any mens rea to commit a crime by falsely offering himself as an candidate for any office for which he is ineligible. With those matters behind us, let us seek rational dialogue, and a sensible course of conduct — Mr. Strauss you seem like a rational enough guy – how about it?
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 21 Nov 2008 1747 hrs EST
nickf - November 21, 2008 at 8:03 pm
To Eigernorthface and Mr. Strauss,
I humbly have to disagree with both of you about a couple of important things.
1) If a candidate is elected that was never eligible, I can’t see that his VP automatically gets the job. I think it would eventually fall on an election in the House of Reps and possibly it might end up, well, Hillary.
2) It would not matter if every single electoral voter voted for Obama. The matter is simple. If he was not eligible, he CANNOT be the President. It is not up for a vote.
3) If a person was elected by a landslide for the Senate and was found to be 24 years old, there would be not impeachment or whatever, that person simply would not be seated. This is the same with the Presidency. If a person is found to be too young or was not natural born, I don’t even know that they can be impeached. They simply would not be the President. They might, in both cases, be later tried for a crime, although other than voter fraud I don’t know what that could be. But if a person is ineligible to run, they by extension CANNOT attain that office.
smrstrauss - November 21, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Re: “When I was 20 years old, I knew better than to travel on a foreign passport and offer myself as an Indonesian. I knew that would constitute an abandonment of my American citizenship.”
Look at this site please:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
It says (in part):
Quotes:
POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.
DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE
In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:
1. is naturalized in a foreign country;
2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
3. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
4. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,
and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.
End quote:
Two observations. Travel on a foreign passport is not listed, and “the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” Oh, and the SC has ruled in another case, that when parents make a decision to give up citizenship for their children, it does not remove US citizenship.
Try another way.
Re: Now you tell me that the electors don’t actually meet in the Congress — they just sort of send in their votes after meeting in the states. Well then I guess it’s pretty hopeless to expect them to do any investigation, right?
That’s right as far as the electors are concerned. You could do the investigation for them and send them the data. I believe that their names are usually published, but you have to do the research in each of the states (and DC and Puerto Rico).
smrstrauss - November 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Re: “The business of the Oath of Allegiance is, perhaps a technicality.”
No, I think it is important. If you are saying that if a person who was, say, 34 years old, and took the oath of allegiance to the constitution was breaking that oath because he knew that he was too young to be president, I’m not sure I go along.
It seems a little like the presidents who took oaths to support the constitution back during the time of prohibition (which was a constitutional amendment remember?) and yet they took drinks.
You recall that the oath says that the president must swear:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
That means he has to preserve the constitution and protect it – but where does it say obey it?
In any case, we are talking theory. There is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or lost his citizenship.
smrstrauss - November 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Re: “Any organization that would have someone like me for a member, I don’t know that I could join.”
That’s Groucho’s joke. “I wouldn’t be a member of any organization that would accept me as a member.”
Okay, you need not join. But if what you want to get done is to get done, then there should be an organization. If not, well, I’m not sorry. But, as I said before, I do welcome being proved wrong. PROVED.
smrstrauss - November 21, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Re: I think that there’s a better than 50% chance that he was actually born in Hawai’i. That’s not enough to make him a natural born citizen. The rules in Hawai’i in 1961 were not the same as the rules in El Paso today. The mother would have to meet a certain residency requirement — a certain amount of time that she was a resident in the US prior to the birth for Obama to automatically become a US citizen just by being born in Hawai’i in 1961.”
Re born in the USA and not a citizen. Sorry, all wrong. If he was born in the USA, he is a citizen and natural born. Anyone born in the USA is a citizen except for a few minor exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
Eigernorthface - November 22, 2008 at 12:10 am
To: nickf — Who it goes to if not Obama depends entirely on when the proof comes in that Obama is not qualified (if it does). Before the inauguration — it’s anybody’s guess — I have no idea — the Electors or the House would get to pick somebody I think. After the inauguration, it would go to Biden. It’s academic how Obama might be characterized in the interim (between the inauguration and the discovery of ineligibility), but for the sake of argument, I think your idea is right, but academic — it’s like Aquinas and the Angels and the pin.
To Mr Strauss: I appreciate that Obama could not lose his citizenship by being dragged off to Indonesia by his mother. It would be assumed that a minor did not intend the loss of his US citizenship, with or without any sort of Oath later on.
I’m not sure that you are right about the Hawai’i birth being disposative. Berg has some issues, he put in his complaint, he talks about what the rules were in Hawai’i in 1961, and how the mother may not have met the residency requirements for the birth to create an automatic US citizen. I don’t know. I’ll accept provisionally what you say about this, but keep an eye on what Berg says as well. The facts in this case are very complex, the father being Kenyan, the mother being a globetrotting traveller like anyone could see who followed her story. I would need to hear from an expert in Hawai’i law, before I could fully and unconditionally agree with you on this point.
The tough issue is whether a 20 year old using an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan has done an act that speaks for itself as a statement that renounces his US citizenship.
I read the law you sent me very carefully, and closely, and try to figure out its spirit — the general intent it embodies. Then I combine that with the ancient rule propounded by Blackstone which is that: “The law abhors a forfeiture”.
That seems to be the reason why the conditions for loss of US citizenship are drafted so narrowly, so specifically, not the kind of thing to be inferred from implicit possibilities, but the kind of thing that must be explicit, crystal clear at the time of its occurance.
It wasn’t like that when Obama went to Pakistan in 1981. Things were not always crystal clear for me when I was 20 years old — maybe they weren’t for Barack either. So inferring some sort of massive forfeiture on him based on what appears to be arguably the objective intent of his conduct, may not be fair.
Well, I am fair. So, you’ve convinced me. I will cease and desist from asking Condi Rice or AG Mukasey to conduct rigorous investigations. As this matter is laid to rest in my mind, it’s clear that the DNC and Obama and the FEC have failed to take care that these considerations be made plain so Americans can rest easy in their hearts about them.
The cases may continue to moil, wrangle, and churn up some dust and heat, but not with my approval or support. The whole idea of asking questions, is to get answers. When satisfactory answers come back, the question is put to rest. The questing process is more like an invitation to receive information than like a challenge to a fight. I don’t issue counterfeit invitations. If I say I’m open to new knowledge — I actually am.
So, that’s it, I’m wiser now, thanks!
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 22 November 2008 0002 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 6:01 am
Re: “I would need to hear from an expert in Hawai’i law, before I could fully and unconditionally agree with you on this point.”
Hawai’I law? It is US law that counts. Hawai’I was a state by 1961. If Obama was born in Hawai’I, as is highly likely, he is a citizen. There are very very few exceptions. As I said, I have heard that children born to foreign diplomats do not get citizenship, but everyone else does.
Re: “The tough issue is whether a 20 year old using an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan has done an act that speaks for itself as a statement that renounces his US citizenship.”
This is not an issue at all. Please look at this site:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
It does not say that you can lose your citizenship by traveling on a foreign passport. It does say that you cannot lose your citizenship unless you take an action INTENDING to lose your citizenship. No issue.
(And by the way, this also removes all the smoke over whether he took an oath of allegiance to the USA after he returned from Pakistan. If he did not lose his citizenship, and he didn’t lose his citizenship, then he didn’t have to take an oath of allegiance.)
Re: “it’s clear that the DNC and Obama and the FEC have failed to take care that these considerations be made plain so Americans can rest easy in their hearts about them.”
I’m glad that you are fair. Try to be even more fair (fair-er)? Remember that this is the first time in US history that anyone has asked a president or a presidential candidate to show proof of the place where he was born. No one asked Lincoln or Taft or FDR or JFK to show proof that they were born where they claimed to be born.
IF their opponents in their elections had shown proof that they were born somewhere outside the USA, things would have been different. But in this case, you are putting the responsibility on the candidate and on the party (and to an extent on the FEC).
I will not discuss the responsibility of the FEC, since I do not know that much about it, but I know that it has never looked at the birth certificates of candidates in the past – though of course it has not been around for all that long, meaning in terms of 40 or so USA presidential elections.
I will, however, stress my main point that the responsibility does not rest on Obama or on the DNC or the FEC. It rests on the opponents of Obama, who were led by McCain during the campaign, and now are a disorganized group of people who ask questions but do not do very much to get answers.
Now, “so Americans can rest easy in their hearts about them.”
It seems to me that only a very very small number of Americans are concerned about this issue. The majority of American voters (by about 9 million, if I remember right) considered him the better of the two leading candidates, despite talk of “palling around with terrorists.” And today, when newspapers published leaks of his pick for secretary of the treasury, the stock market went up by nearly 500 points.
Re general themes of attack on Obama’s citizenship. It seems to me that there are two wings of the attack on Obama. The first is the allegation that he was born outside the USA. The answer to this is simple. If there is evidence that he was born outside the USA, you win.
The second theme is more complex. It holds that even if Obama were born in the USA, he lost his citizenship at some point because he had dual nationality and took some action that stripped him of US citizenship or failed to act to restore US citizenship.
In the case of Leo C. Donofrio, which is the New Jersey case arguing that Obama is not a citizen, and which reportedly will go to a conference of justices of the Supreme Court in early December, the issue is even more complex. Donofrio argues that simply because Obama had dual nationality with Kenya at the time of his birth, he is not a “natural born citizen.”
Donofrio argues that if Obama were born in Hawaii, then he would be a citizen, but not a “natural born citizen” because (of all things) the 14th Amendment to the Constitution changed the definition of “natural born” in Article II of the Constitution — which formerly meant only that someone had to be born in the USA, to someone born in the USA AND having allegiance to the USA.
As you know, the 14th Amendment was designed to grant rights, not remove them. But Donofrio argues that we should read strictly the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in this sentence:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In other words, if Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA at the time of his birth, he is not a “natural born” citizen. And Donofrio argues that because Obama’s father was a British subject, then Obama’s real allegiance and jurisdiction was to Britain.
This, I think, is about as crazy as you can get. Jurisdiction does not mean allegiance, and even if it did, Obama WAS subject to USA jurisdiction and Hawaii jurisdiction at the time of his birth, if he was born in Hawaii.
In short, the claim that Obama was born outside the USA requires evidence. The allegations based on dual citizenship are either tremendous stretches of the law, requiring loss of citizenship by accident (when it can only be by the intent of an adult) or are simply fantastic legal theories, as in the Donofrio case.
Did you know that there are still people who believe that aliens landed in Rosewell, NM, and their bodies are still stored there, and the US government has covered that fact up all these years? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1859301/posts)
I don’t want to stop on a sarcastic note. Here’s something lighter. Did you know that there are now law review articles asserting that legacy admissions to private universities are unconstitutional because, of all things, of the “nobility” clause in the US constitution? (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/do-legacy-admissions.html)
Eigernorthface - November 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Fair-er my God to thee … Fair … er .. to Thee! I’m with that. Socrates used to say he wanted to become more filled with the spirit of Justice every day — such was the proper progress of a human life — John Bunyan might say a pilgrim’s progress, Chaucer might call it our journey to Canterbury.
On legacy admissions, I approve of them under two conditions. 1. They must result in major gifts to the College or University and 2. The student getting admitted that way has to meet the minimum standards for admission. By letting that student in, 100 other students are paid for. The impact on educational mission is a net positive, so, as a policy matter, it’s not great policy, but it’s good enough policy.
On Obama and his opponents — I think he’s head and shoulders above them, literally and figuratively. He’s got AKGRET (sounds like accurate — my own acronym to describe his unique selling proposition which in an Uncanny Knack for Getting it Right Every Time AKGRET — rhymes with accurate).
On the Secretary of the Treasury appointment — it’s a display of Obama’s AKGRET trait. He keeps up that way, he can make the country better, maybe heal the world.
Yes, Hawai’i is part of USA. Yes, Federal law applies. But it’s the Federal law that applied in 1961 in Hawai’i that counts, not the Federal law that applies in El Paso today. If, under Federal law in 1961 in Hawai’i the parent giving birth had to meet a residency requirement for the birth to give rise to an automatic US citizen, then that’s the law that counts. If you could assure me that Federal law in every state in 1961 said that any baby (apart from the rare exceptions you mentioned) born in that state became a US citizen, then that whole line of reasoning in the Berg complaint would be decisively exploded — poof! it’s gone. That’s what’s needed — erroneous ideas should be decisively put out of their misery, that way we can know the truth and be free and light in our hearts.
My consternation and the DNC abides, in spite of my renewed endeavor to be ever more fair and just. They should have figured this out a year ago, written detailed reports on it, and filed them with the Court on the same day that Berg and Keyes and whoever else filed their cases. “Be Prepared” — the boy scout thing — how dumb would the DNC have to be to not anticipate this as an issue, and do some detailed work, like you have done Mr. Strauss to head it (and me) off. I look forward to the day that I can have positive feelings about the DNC, and their strategic insight and managerial leadership.
Your basic argument is totally right. The spirit of the law is to avoid a forfeiture. In this case we are talking about a 20 year old kid raised in Indonesia — what does he know about passports and expatriation – nothing right? So what could he intend? Nothing. So did he explicitely and voluntarily give up his citizenship? No. So did he give it up at all — no under the law — if the Hawai’i birth thing goes as you say it does, which I have no reason to doubt at this point, although the language in the Berg complaint still needs to be analysed and refuted in my humble opinion — the residency rules that Berg claims applied at that time in that place.
So if he had it and did not give it up, what Oath is required? None. In any case the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath that Obama took when joining the US Senate are substantively similar. If content inferred from actions would be good enough to put him out of his citizenship, then the same reasoning could put him back in. Any fairminded person I think would see that by taking the Oath required to assume a seat in the U.S. Senate Obama was implicitely asserting his continuing citizenship in and allegiance to the USA. But that argument is not necessary, if what you’ve told me is true — he never lost it — no voluntariness.
We, I think agree that the Africa testimony is pure mumbo-jumbo, and goes right in the trash. It’s not a question of intending to lie. It’s more a question of being raised in a culture in which there simply is no concept of an “objective truth” — truth that is somehow different from who is asking the question and what is their power status relative to the interrogatee, and what’s the chance of getting a protein bisquit out of this transaction before sundown. I served in Oman East Africa, for the Navy, as a lawyer — I understand Protein Bisquit Speech (PBS for a Brave New World).
I still care about the issue, but I’m satisfied. I was sure this question was going to turn on the facts of the case — hence my letter to Condi Rice to go get the facts. Now I find that actually the case turns on the law, as you’ve shown it to me. Lord Keynes said it best “When the facts change, I change my mind … what do you do?”
Again, thanks! It’s people with a sense of detail and precise thought that make America work. We don’t let things slide, we chase them down, and find out what’s right. Obama looks right, so my hat’s off to smrstrauss for the energy given and the information and value added.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 22 November 2008, 1226 hrs EST
umpire111 - November 22, 2008 at 1:29 pm
who will ask condi rice to investigate
Physicist - November 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Test post
nickf - November 22, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Again, guys, I have to totally disagree with you about a couple of things.
First of all, this candidate was not the first to have his credentials for the Presidency challenged. There have been a few and some of those challenges were correct and the candidate had to step down from his candidancy.
It wasn’t even the first time this year. Berg’s lawsuit was placed in August of this year. By January of this year, the left was all over McCain’s birth. He provided the info necessary. He turned it in to the Senate and a bi-partisan statement was made that he was indeed a natural born citizen.
And the reason I think the courts need to be involved is very much simpler than all of the legal mumbo jumbo going on here. It is all fine for one to say that it depends on Federal law, or Hawaiian law or whatever, but I don’t think that is accurate either. The intent of the statement is to exclude the possibility of THE executive of the nation having any responsibilities or allegiance to any country other than the United States.
Now I realize that many don’t want to take intent by the forefathers into consideration when debating the Constitution. Thus we have debates over ‘militia’, ‘public use’, etc. But in this case I think the intent is very meaningful.
And once again, it does not matter how many people voted for him or against him. It is simply a matter of eligibility. And the continued disrespect paid to those that have asked this question is palpable. Transparancy my ass!!
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Re: First of all, this candidate was not the first to have his credentials for the Presidency challenged. There have been a few and some of those challenges were correct and the candidate had to step down from his candidancy.
Who please? Was it someone who was born outside the USA? Or was it someone who was under the age of 35?
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Re: “Yes, Hawai’i is part of USA. Yes, Federal law applies. But it’s the Federal law that applied in 1961 in Hawai’i that counts, not the Federal law that applies in El Paso today. If, under Federal law in 1961 in Hawai’i the parent giving birth had to meet a residency requirement for the birth to give rise to an automatic US citizen, then that’s the law that counts.”
Well, this implies that the USA has at one time had different citizenship laws in different places.
I do not believe that this is factually correct. To be sure, Hawaii was at one time a kingdom, but it was a state in 1961.
And, there are broader legal principles involved here. It is not merely that the USA has never had different laws regarding citizenship for different places in the USA, it is that IF the USA ever did have different laws and rules for different places the broadest of principles, that we are one country, would be violated.
If my memory of history is right, it was always the case that if you were born even in a US territory, you are a natural born citizen. And, I think, some presidents were born in territories.
So, I do not think you will find anything special about Hawaii. It was a state when Obama was born. If Obama was born there, and he was, he is a natural-born citizen.
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Re: Berg on “how the mother may not have met the residency requirements for the birth to create an automatic US citizen.”
I see what you are getting at, but this refers to the mother may not have met the residency requirements to create an automatic US citizen, IF OBAMA WERE BORN OUTSIDE THE USA. That’s what this refers to, and it refers only to birth outside the USA.
If Obama was born inside the USA, and he was, there are no special requirements for the parents. What counts is the place of birth.
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Re: “On legacy admissions, I approve of them under two conditions. 1. They must result in major gifts to the College or University and 2. The student getting admitted that way has to meet the minimum standards for admission. By letting that student in, 100 other students are paid for. The impact on educational mission is a net positive, so, as a policy matter, it’s not great policy, but it’s good enough policy.”
I did not bring this up as a matter of policy, but of law. To me, the law is that private universities have the right to have legacy admissions because they are private. The legal argument I referred to, NOT with approval, held that private universities were violating the constitution because of the “nobility” clause.
This is what I would call a real stretch of legal theory, and by no means one that any appeals court is likely to even consider. But, heck, people have strange legal theories, such as one that holds that the 14th amendment’s mention of “jurisdiction” amends Article II to remove the old definition of natural-born as born in the USA, and substitute a new definition meaning born in the USA and not having dual nationality.
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Re: “We, I think agree that the Africa testimony is pure mumbo-jumbo, and goes right in the trash.”
I completely agree with you, and as I have said, the chance of Obama’s mother traveling to Kenya when she was nine-months pregnant when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa is just short of nil.
Still, I do not want to remove all hope from my opponents.
In 1961 Kenya was still a British colony. If there are still records preserved from those days, and there is no reason to believe that they are not – Kenya has a national archives – then IF Obama’s mother had traveled to Kenya in 1961, that fact would certainly have been entered in the immigration records. It is only the Corsi’s of this world who assert that these records cannot be obtained because the Kenyan government has imposed a ban on looking at Obama-related records in 2008.
Moreover, if Obama had been born in Kenya, he would have had to obtain a passport in order to travel to Hawaii or be entered onto either his father’s Kenyan passport or his mother’s US passport. This would have had to happen IN KENYA, at either the Kenyan body issuing passports (their equivalent of the Sate Department), or at one of the US consulates in Kenya. In either case, there would be a record preserved somewhere.
Like you, and Keynes, I am prepared to change my mind if the facts change.
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Re: ”The intent of the statement is to exclude the possibility of THE executive of the nation having any responsibilities or allegiance to any country other than the United States.”
What statement? If you are referring to Article II, Section 1, that says only that the president must be a natural-born citizen, which means born in the USA. It doesn’t specifically exclude dual nationals. If it had intended to exclude persons who had dual allegiances, it would have said so. If it had required persons to swear to have allegiance only to the USA, it would have said so.
I believe that conservatives like to talk about “strict construction” in interpreting the Constitution. In this case, the strict construction is “It doesn’t say that persons with dual nationality should be barred from the job. If I (the judge) say that it means that dual nationals are barred, even though it doesn’t say it, I am creating a “judge-made law.”
In short, there are no votes from the liberals on the court and no votes from the strict constructionists on the court.
smrstrauss - November 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Re: “It is simply a matter of eligibility. And the continued disrespect paid to those that have asked this question is palpable.”
Yes, we all are discussing eligibility. My point has been that IF Obama were not born in the USA, he would not be eligible. However, I say that there is no evidence that he was not born in the USA.
Over on the “lost his citizenship” side of the picture, I say that the law makes it virtually impossible to lose your citizenship accidentally even if you are a dual national. If you look at the Web site of the State Department that I cited before, you will see that it is indeed practically impossible to lose your citizenship by accident (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html).
The Donofrio case hinges on whether the 14th Amendment to the Constitution changed the definition of natural-born citizen of Article II, which is probably not true, and the Supreme Court would be unlikely to indulge in such speculation in any case (and, if it did, there aren’t five votes for it).
Re: “And the continued disrespect paid to those that have asked this question is palpable.”
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Are you referring to the fact that I think the folks who say that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy have about as much critical brainpower as the folks who still think that the US government has the bodies of aliens stored in Rosewell,NM?
If not me, then you must mean that the Obama campaign has shown disrespect by not putting a copy of the real birth certificate on line. Is this true? If so, the answer is that it DID put the certification of live birth on line, and this is proof that he was born in Hawaii. And, if you say, “but it isn’t,” then you have to show not only that it isn’t, but that he knows that it isn’t.
But you could say “he shows disrespect by fighting the lawsuits.” But, no, that’s not true. The lawsuits all demand that he release birth records. They all argue that they have the RIGHT to see his records. That’s not the same thing as asking to see the records. If someone says that they have the right to see your records, it is natural to fight to preserve your rights.
Perplexed - November 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Not one of you mentioned the Ron McRea, Kweli Shuhubia, and Imam Affidavits. Shuhubia and Imam reportedly have fled Kenya because their lives were and are being threatened. Iman reportedly left with Mosque documents of Obama’s birth, and he is now in the UK, as are the documents. According to these men, by the way, his name is Barack Hussien Obama III, not II, as the Hawaii records indicate. And no one knows how long his mother was in Kenya before he was born. There are indications she was deplaned when she attempted to leave just before he was born. We really need to open this matter up for public viewing. You’re right, it won’t go away.
Perplexed - November 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Not one of you mentioned the Ron McRea, Kweli Shuhubia, and Imam Affidavits. Shuhubia and Imam reportedly have fled Kenya because their lives were and are being threatened. Iman reportedly left with Mosque documents of Obama’s birth, and he is now in the UK, as are the documents. According to these men, by the way, his name is Barack Hussien Obama III, not II, as the Hawaii records indicate. And no one knows how long his mother was in Kenya before he was born. There are indications she was deplaned when she attempted to leave just before he was born. We really need to open this matter up for public viewing. You’re right, it won’t go away.
Perplexed - November 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Not one of you mentioned the Ron McRea, Kweli Shuhubia, and Imam Affidavits. Shuhubia and Imam reportedly have fled Kenya because their lives were and are being threatened. Iman reportedly left with Mosque documents of Obama’s birth, and he is now in the UK, as are the documents. According to these men, by the way, his name is Barack Hussien Obama III, not II, as the Hawaii records indicate. And no one knows how long his mother was in Kenya before he was born. There are indications she was deplaned when she attempted to leave just before he was born. We really need to open this matter up for public viewing. You’re right, it won’t go away.
Eigernorthface - November 23, 2008 at 1:29 pm
1. I agree with the idea that Obama was born in Hawai’i. For me, the most convincing point is that Hawai’i officials right now today say they have gone back and found the vault records, and that the COLB is basically consistent with the vault records, and that they won’t release the vault records due to privacy law concerns. Credere the latin word means to believe. I put credere (my belief) on the Hawai’i officials today. They are Americans. They are officials. They know there’s a lot at stake here. They have every reason not to lie — including that such a false official statement would bring major penalties. Their punctiliousness about the Privacy Act, suggests persons who would not be willing to make huge howling false official statements, especially if they confirm vault paper records presently in existence, which would mean that by some sort of subpoena process any false statement they make might later be disproved, and they would receive big penalties. It’s a question of credere. I only practiced as a Federal trial lawyer for 25 years, so maybe my ability to sort through evidence is not as fully developed as someone who practiced for 50 years, but as I see it — Obama was born in Hawai’i.
2. If this is true, and if Strauss’ position is correct that given the Hawai’i birth location, the mother’s residency at various times becomes non-germaine, then Berg’s last and final possible valid argument has been exploded … poof! it’s gone, nice work Strauss!
3. On the right of private universities to do as they please, the Dartmouth v New Hampshire case seems probative. Once they get a Charter, the state can’t meddle with them. I don’t think PC-crazed persons in the Federal government can either. I should publish the origami diagrams that I used to make my little tinfoil hat. I see that such hats are popular, maybe even in high demand among the PC crowd.
4. On the dual nationality issue, I think the four corners of the document rule applies. It can be inferred, and that’s what construing the Constitution is all about — making rational inferences. The whole Constitution is not contained very narrowly within the most literal possible meaning of the words. Like any law, treaty, or contract it must be interpreted. Strauss is probably right about where the votes are on the Supreme Court, but to me the idea of a person with dual citizenship being the President seems contrary to the overall intent of the Constitution when the four corners analysis is applied. Holistic vision — see the whole thing — interpret its meaning based on a rational interpretation of the entire text, not just the narrow reading of this or that clause. It’s true that if the Founders wanted to exclude dual citizens they could have said so explicitly. But it’s also true that they expected rational inferences to be made, and they may have thought they said enough to point us (and the Supreme Court) in the right direction. Marbury v Madison — the Supremes are there to tell us what the words in the Constitution mean. For me, dual citizens are out. For the Supremes that are sitting now, I will defer to Strauss’ vote counting, and admit that it’s probably correct.
5. On the issue of disrespect, my own idea is that the Privacy Law is less important than Article II. So I would ask Hawai’i to set up a reading room for persons to come and examine all Obama related documents — those in Hospitals, those in Archives, those in Immigration records — ALL OBAMA RELATED DOCUMENTS — held by any officials, or anyone else whose documents can be obtained by official document requests. I would grant all officials complying with this edict a full, complete, and unconditional waiver of any and all parts of the Privacy Act, or any other privacy related law or rule by any jurisdiction or rulemaking authority subject to US law and the Supremacy Clause.
Put all out there. That’s doesn’t mean let readers touch the documents. Just put them in plexiglas cases so people can come and look at them — like the case they keep the Constitution in, right?
I believe the Hawai’i officials. But I also have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, even the tinfoil hat people, who don’t believe anything until it’s proved right before their own eyes. If science operated that way, it would grind to a halt in 10 minutes. But OK let’s respect everybody. They can go the reading room, put their finger in the wound, put their eye on the documents. Sorry Obama not everybody gets all their privacy all the time. Tradeoffs have to be made. It’s not a perfect world. In your case, putting the “foreigner” bugaboo to rest simply supercedes ethically and legally the importance of whatever values are fostered by the “Privacy Act” and related laws.
I don’t see any disrespect on this site. Quite the opposite, I see rational people behaving is a civil way. Everybody’s view gets an answer. Minds are changed. That’s the talisman of true conversation.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 23 November 2008, 1325 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 23, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Dear Perplexed:
I have this wonderful bridge. It has been in my family for the last 160 years. It is beautiful and absolutely necessary for crossing from Manhattan to Brooklyn, and tens of thousands of people use it every day.
Because you are a good-spirited soul, I will sell you this bridge for only $10,000 – - though it is worth many scores of millions of dollars. Please rush your answer to me, since I have many others who also want to buy the bridge.
What’s that? You say no? Why is it that you do not believe me, but you do believe the Ron McRea, Kweli Shuhubia, and Imam “Affidavits? “ (Notice that I put quotation marks around the word affidavits. Want to know why? Because we do not know that they really are affidavits. We only know that someone says that they are affidavits.)
Moreover, to believe that Obama was born in Kenya means more than believing the Ron McRea, Kweli Shuhubia, and Imam “Affidavits.” It means believing that Obama’s mother traveled from Hawaii to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy. In those days that was quite a trip. There were no direct flights. Moreover, she had to have a Yellow Fever shot – which is considered risky during pregnancies.
It also means that she made that trip to see her in-laws but there are no photographs of her in Kenya or photographs of Obama with his grandparents. Nor are there official government records of her arriving in Kenya. If she had gone to Kenya, throughout her life she could never have chatted with a friend to reveal “you know, I gave birth in Kenya,” because that friend would remember that she had said it. And she could not have told Obama where he was born, because children tend to reveal things to their friends, and if he had revealed it anytime in his life, that friend might remember it and reveal it now. In other words, the conspiracy must have begun from the time Obama’s mother arrived back from Kenya IF she went to Kenya. And both the Kenya and Hawaii governments must be party to the conspiracy.
The explanation by the Bergs and Corsis of this world for the absence of photographs is that when she got to Kenya, there was a dispute between Obama’s mother and the family – so there were no photos. But that isn’t sufficient explanation because people generally do not get into disputes in the first few minutes of meeting their in-laws but photographs are often taken right away. It is Berg also who created the myth that Obama’s mother was taken off the plane when she wanted to go back to Hawaii to give birth there. There is no confirmation of this.
Then there is the lack of official records of Obama’s mother in Kenya. The Bergs and Corsis of this word explain their absence by saying that the government of Kenya has sealed the records. But remember, it is only the Bergs and Corsis of this world who say that. There is no confirmation that there are records or that any of them have been sealed.
Back in Hawaii, the state of Hawaii has issued a certification of live birth that confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials have looked into the files and said that the document is accurate based on the contents of the files. They will not show what is in the files but that is a normal matter of privacy. But they do not have to show it for us to believe it because we know that if they were lying about this, and their lie were exposed, then they would probably lose their jobs and possibly be prosecuted for fraud.
smrstrauss - November 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Re: “On the issue of disrespect, my own idea is that the Privacy Law is less important than Article II. So I would ask Hawai’i to set up a reading room for persons to come and examine all Obama related documents — those in Hospitals, those in Archives, those in Immigration records — ALL OBAMA RELATED DOCUMENTS — held by any officials, or anyone else whose documents can be obtained by official document requests.’
This I think is a good idea. But right now it is not a legal idea.
My suggestion is that if you want this to happen, you should press for a federal law requiring that kind of disclosure, and you should not limit yourself to Obama. Instead, this should be a standard federal law applying to anyone who announces his candidacy for president and all past candidates for president back to the time of George Washington. All records should be available: Birth records, tax records, all stocks sold and all stocks purchased, Etc.
Until then, you cannot just wave a wand and say “I would ask.” That’s not the law. And, since it is not the law, Obama is not disrespecting anyone. He did, however, show his certificate of live birth, which is more than FDR did, JFK did, Nixon did , Carter did, Reagan did, Etc.
smrstrauss - November 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Dear Perplexed:
I am terribly sorry, that bridge has only been in my family for 125 years. That means it is newer than I originally thought. I have to raise the price. Are you still interested?
Fred Jones - November 23, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Say what you will, but the bottom line is this — if Obama had nothing to hide, he would have submitted a certified copy of his complete birth certificate to the court a long time ago, and put this issue to rest. Instead, he spends thousands of dollars fighting multiple cases (some to the Supreme Court), all in an effort to hide the contents of his birth certificate. Can any Obama supporter name one good reason why anyone who had nothing to hide would do such a stupid thing? I doubt it.
By the way, while we’re on this subject, where are copies of Obama’s records from Occidental, or Columbia, or Harvard, or 8 years as a State Senator in Illinois? Only a fool would believe that Obama is not hiding something very damaging to his credibility.
Don Maccank - November 23, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Subject: FOI request for Obama’s birth certificate –found on the internet at http://www.DailyJeff.com-has all 50 SOS emails-1 stop emailing!
FOI REQUEST TO ALL SOS FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
We need to find out what the SOS of the various States know about Obama’s birth certificate and qualifications to be president. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to some or all of the SOS bureau of elections. After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com, http://www.freerepublic.com, http://www.peoplespassions.org, http://americamustknow.com,www.rallycongress.com.
1. The address , fax number and email address for the Bureau of elections for the states are at http://www.eac.gov.
2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. See emails listed below for all 50 SOS.Cut and paste to send all 50 at one time. Sit back and wait for answers.
November 21, 2008
TO: BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
Bureau of Elections, California
1500 11th St, 5th Floor FAX: 916-653-5634
Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: elections@sos.ca.gov
ATTN: Freedom of Information Officer
REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
a. Original birth certificate
b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
If this is not the proper department, please forward to the Election Bureau/SOS.
I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.
Sincerely,
Robert Johnson
123 Main St
Anywhere , CA
Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
FAX: (209) 479-3021
WARNING
Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.
Jeannie.price@sos.alabama.gov,governor@alaska.gov,governorsoffice@asg-gov.net,
sosadmin@azsos.gov,sos@sosmail.state.ar.us,constituentaffairs@sos.ca.gov,
secretary@state.co.us ,susan.bysiewicz@po.state.ct.us ,lorilee.harrison@state.de.us ,
Stephanie.scott@dc.gov,secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us,sosweb@sos.state.ga.us,
elections@aloha.net,sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov,JWhite@ilos.net,
constituentservices@sos.in.gov,sos@sos.state.ia.us,kssos@kssos.org,sos.secretary@ky.gov,
bobby.jindal@la.gov,sos.office@maine.gov,bmorris@sos.state.md.us,
agoweb@state.ma.us,secretary@michigan.gov,secretary.state@state.mn.us,
administrator@sos.state.ms.us,sosmain@sos.mo.gov,sos@mt.gov,receptionist@sos.ne.gov,
sosmail@sos.nv.gov,elections@sos.state.nh.us,feedback@sos.state.nj.us,
nmsos@state.nm.us,info@dos.state.ny.us,emarshal@sosnc.com,sos@nd.gov,
tworley@sos.state.oh.us,governor@gov.state.ok.us,Oregon.sos@state.or.us,
pcortes@state.pa.us,correo@fortaleza.gobierno.pr,comments@sec.state.ri.us,
rdaggerhart@sos.sc.gov,sdsos@state.sd.us,phil.bredesen@state.tn.us,
secretary@sos.state.tx.us,mshurtleff@utah.gov,dmarkowitz@sec.state.vt.us,
justice@usvi.org,soc@governor.virginia.gov,mail@secstate.wa.gov,
wvsos@wvsos.com,wigov@gov.state.wi.us,secofstate@state.wy.us,
nickf - November 23, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Mr. Strauss,
I will continue to look but there was a black candidate for president who was refused to be placed on a ballot in California, I believe, because he was only 34.
But I think if you read your comments, you didn’t ask who was disqualified, only who was challenged. So if you had read my post to the end, Your side challenged John McCain back in January of this year.
The interesteing thing about McCain is that he immediately showed his documentation to the Senate and they voted to say that yes he was qualified. Now the Donofrio (Sp?) lawsuit still claims that he was unqualified to run because he was born outside of the United States. And if the Senate cannot state that he was, it IS a federal lawmaker, then who can?
My point is that he is hiding something. It may not be his actual birth but it may be something of interest to the electorate.
But this is the man that is scrupulously screening every applicant to his government while not allowing anyone to scrutinize his qualifications. There are some valid arguments that his associations with Ayers would have prevented him from obtaining a security clearance and yet he will be able to access the most secret of all our intellignece.
And there was the game on the internet where they would ask you something like, Are you smarter than John McCain – his IQ is 137. Are you smarter than Hillary – her IQ is 140. Then they have the one are you smarter than Obama – his is 147. How does anyone know what his IQ is? All of his records are sealed. Why? Shouldn’t we know where he graduated in his class? A big deal was made out of McCain’s class standing. And on and on.
I got involved in this initially when I read an internet bit on his lawsuit in August. I saw who was filing it (a diehard Democrat) and thought that I knew how it would end. Berg said that if only Obama would show him his real BC then he would drop the suit. I figured it was all a political ploy. Berg would announce that he had dropped the lawsuit because Obama showed him the valid BC and he could say absolutely that Obama was natural born.
But then in October, I was on a blog and found out it was still out there and unresolved. My first thought was, how stupid of Obama to let this hang like this, just show the dang BC and be done with it. But instead of doing that, he has been fighting tooth and nail to stop these various lawsuits. It just seems at the very least disrespectful (and that is what I meant above) to all those that opposed him to just thumb his nose at us like this. At worst there is something there to worry about.
As I said in another blog, he either:
1) Has nothing at all to hide. In which case his efforts to hide his BC means he just cares that little for those of us ‘interested’.
2) He has something to hide but it would not prevent his being President. Well, he has been elected. Nothing to do but accept him. And in 4 years, if he does well, no one will care or remember.
3) He is not qualified to be President. In which case he just pulled the wool over all of our eyes and fooled almost 67 million people.
Regardless of which answer, it is a lack of transparency that he promised us. Where is it?
Eigernorthface - November 23, 2008 at 9:27 pm
To: Mr. Strauss:
Yes, I know the reading room idea is not the law. I’m proposing it. Let’s make it the law.
No it does not have to be the law for all past Presidents.
Yes it’s Ok to make it the law for all future Presidents.
Yes factual inquiries are made in the directions where there are factual questions, and not in directions where there are no factual questions.
Why didn’t people want to know by the securest possible evidence where JFK was born? This is no deep mystery. He came from a big New England family, many of whom were present within a very short time after his birth. His mother and father were well known to the community. Same with FDR, same with George Washington.
So your idea that if a detailed inquiry is appropriate for Obama, then it must have been appropriate for all prior Presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, all the way back, is mistaken — it’s not illegal for you to think that but it’s a mistake, it’s not logical.
Detailed inquiries are made where detailed inquiries are called for. If they are not called for, they are not made.
If they are made in the case of Obama, then basic fairness would suggest tnat they should be made in for all Presidents going forward from here. It’s not logical in every case, but it would be equitable. Once we decide we need to look into these things carefully for one fellow, then all the persons that come after should get the same scrutiny. Equal protection/Due process basic fairness it doesn’t matter how you write the brief just get the bottom line right. I was hell on my clerks — they had to make the law be whatever way I wanted it to be. Well we won most of our cases, so apparently they wrote good briefs.
It wouldn’t even really have to be a law. Obama could just decide it was a rational and prudent thing to do, and just have it done by Executive Order. Order #1 — To clear away the bugaboo about me being a foreigner it is ordered that a reading room be set up in Hawai’i containing … etc … including my vault birth certificate … etc … etc … et cetera (like in the King and I with Yul Brenner and Julie Andrews).
All sensible behavior by all human beings does not necessarily have to arise by compulsion of the law. Quote me if you like on that.
Getting the information out there would be beneficial to USA. Presidents should seek to benefit USA. Therefore President Obama should get the information out there. This syllogism would be Barbara in the First Figure — see Aritotle.
Being born in Hawai’i is the key that unlocks the Golden Door, so if he’s got it, the Privacy Act can be waived. Just stop the tinfoil hat gang from creating mischief in the courts that does nobody any good and that could get complicated and do some real harm.
The stories about the Kenya visit I think have been correctly analysed by Strauss (your own self), and surely they are Berg’s and Corsi’s inventions with no plausible basis in fact. None of that material has to be addressed in the reading room or anywhere else as far as I’m concerned. A global chase after hearsay-based red herrings is no part of our tradition, and this is not a good time to begin a new tradition in that direction. But if we are just talking about waiving the Privacy Act, so we can have a low-conflict no drama inauguration, I don’t see why Obama would have to be legally compelled to get that done — he could just do it. It’s not like he’s giving up any of his Presidential powers. It would not affect the Office of the Presidency one bit. It would just be a case of one President being compliant with the wishes of the People to be fully assured of his citizenship — not a big deal — unless somebody makes it a big deal. Obama could take the wind out of Berg and Keyes with little effort, and he should do so, in my humble opinion.
For the conspiracy theorists I offer this modest proposal. A national tinfoil hat making contest (I will supply origami diagrams). The winning hat judged by a panel of persons who have been probed by aliens aboard their spacecraft should have all necessary antennae and force field projector cones. The winner gets an “All Access Pass” to area 51, and this includes the right to take samples of any remains of aliens found in underground storage facilities at Area 51.
I’m not a big believer in secrets — unless they are about special forces operations that are ongoing, or covert intelligence operatives in the field and active, or who have recently been active and run agents abroad.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I’m not saying that Berg and Keyes are bad people. But in this case they would have nothing to work with if the Obama legal team would find a way to just get the documents out there where folks can see them.
Lawyers always seem to find ways to keep each other employed, and the chalk it up to high moral purpose or preserving the law. But to ordinary folks it looks like gratuitous vexaciousness and contrariness.
Let us not be contrary. The best way is just agree with my rational suggestions — be affable, not obtuse. Reason is the light. Using it makes the world brighter.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 23 November 2008, 2120 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 24, 2008 at 11:06 am
Re: He “has nothing at all to hide. In which case his efforts to hide his BC means he just cares that little for those of us ‘interested’.”
That is precisely right. He cares little for the very few who are interested. That’s right. Why should he care? Are these few his friends? How many are interested? How smart are they? He may think: I have other things on my plate. Who would be the best secretary of the treasury? How to bailout the economy?
It’s like, well, when your teacher had just shown you that 2+2 = 4. And you and a small group of other people are not convinced, and you say “Teacher, show us again. Show us again that 2+2 = 4.” And she says : “It’s time to spend more attention on the smarter kids in the class.”
Why is it dumb to want to see the real birth certificate? Because all that it will show you is the hospital in Hawaii and possibly the name of the doctor. What does this do to change the situation? We already know that Obama was born in Hawaii because the officials in Hawaii have seen that certificate.
You are not going to find a certificate from Kenya in the Hawaii files. Why not?
Because the officials in Hawaii would not say that they had verified the certification of real birth which says that he was born in Hawaii if there were a Kenya birth certificate in the files. They have nothing to gain by misleading us, and if it ever were found out that they had mislead us, there would be adverse consequences.
So far today the DJ Average is up 300 points on top of a 500-point rise on Friday.
Most people care more about such practical things than insisting that the president elect show a document that logically cannot reveal anything related to his eligibility for office than the certificate of live birth.
And it is the arrogance of the demand that is strange. It is like saying: “show us your marriage license.” Or, frankly, it’s like “What are you doing driving in this neighborhood at this time of night, boy.”
I suggest that even presidents and presidents-elect have some rights to privacy. You know that Obama smokes? You can say: “We demand to see more photos of him smoking.” Well, fine, you can demand, but he does not have to supply.
And, frankly, the opponents of Obama are *@#**@** (oops, that’s not affable) lazy. They put all their hope and all their effort into making him show a document that he does not have to show (and frankly, we don’t even know that he knows that you want him to show it), when they could be sending private investigators to Kenya to find out the facts. If they really cared, they would send smart, impartial investigators to find out, not amateurs like Corsi.
But, maybe you are right not to investigate. Maybe it would be just a waste of time. I think it would. But I’m not on your side.
It’s not a conservative virtue to whine about “why doen’t he show? Why doesn’t he show.” It is a conservative virtue to rely on yourself and other conservatives to find out anything that can be found out.
smrstrauss - November 24, 2008 at 11:23 am
Re: Your side challenged John McCain back in January of this year.
Not my side. One person. I don’t know which side he was on. And the case was thrown out because the guy had no standing to sue.
Besides, I said “before this election.” I knew that there was a lawsuit.
But, of course, it was not a lawsuit demanding to see McCain’s birth certificate because that would not have revealed anything. The issue that this guy brought (and I do not agree with him) was that McCain was ineligible because he was born on that Naval base in Panama and not in the 50 states or 50 states plus territories that is normally considered in the term “natural born.”
I think McCain was natural born.
The point is that I believed him when he said that he was born on a naval base in Panama. So when Obama says that he was born in Hawaii, I suggest that it is only fair and polite to believe that he was born in Hawaii, especially since the certification of live birth and the officials in Hawaii confirm that he was born in Hawaii.
smrstrauss - November 24, 2008 at 11:38 am
Re: “Let’s make it the law.”
Okay. I’m in favor. I’ll write my congressman. I’ll write him. “I am in discussion with a conservative, who normally wants as little legislation as possible and believes that free markets are best without much regulation.
“He may even have opposed the tighter regulations on corporate disclosures that were enacted by Sarbanes-Oxley. BUT now he thinks it is time for a federal law requiring all presidential candidates to show not merely their certification of live birth but their underlying birth certificate as well.
“I see no reason why informed Americans should not have this information, so I do hope you will pass it sometime in the near future. But please, first spend your time on fixing the recession and improving US health care.”
Eigernorthface - November 24, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Yes, it true that fixing the recession comes first, even before the new law that you and I will push for about reading rooms — we will both write our Congressmen.
By the way, I’m no conservative. My recent occupation has been to write for my local paper as a columnist on the Op-Ed page. After 68 bylines over a period of three years, none of the senior editors at the paper can figure out whether I’m a liberal or a conservative. They get an equal number of foaming at the mouth angry letters about my column from each group.
My teacher, was also named Strauss — a lion of a man, was a conservative. I studied with him in the last three years of his life, and was his “reader” who read the text in class before he would comment on it.
My problem with conservatives is that they have principles. Neitzche was my teacher on this subject — and now I have none. All that’s left is sincerity, and on various issues it flows this way and that, sort of in many directions. Sometimes even on the same issue. For example when I first came to this site I was in favor of the Berg and Keyes cases. Then we talked. Now I’m against those cases — I think they are a waste of time, talent, and imagination.
This turnaround occurred because of my education into the details of the INA law. I always thought Obama was born in Hawai’i, but I thought he had abandoned his citzenship and not reclaimed it with the Oath of Allegiance.
Now, have read the law with some care, I don’t think he abandoned it. It’s real hard to expatriate yourself. The conditions for doing so are fully specified and very narrow. Obama clearly does not meet the conditions, even if he did travel to Pakistan in 1981, and even if he did that on an Indonesian passport. You sort of have to know what you are doing and very specifically intend to expatriate yourself for that happen under the law. 20 year olds raised in Indonesia just don’t have the knowledge or specific intent unless they say something to a Judge or Consular Officer and even that would have to be pretty clear and specific. Nothing like that happened. So Berg’s case goes “poof!” and Keyes’ case goes “poof!” and smart people move on to other things. 2 + 2 = 4, I get it!
On free markets without much regulation — that’s surely not my belief. I believe in competent and firm regulation. Evil does exist in the world. Some of it is on Wall Street and takes the form of rapacious greed. Greed drives the engine of capitalism, but rapacious greed runs it right off the rails. So greed needs to be bridled greed — I call that regulated capitalism. My MBA Thesis was on this very topic. I graduated with top honors. So, yes I’m a “laisser pas faire n’apporte quoi” sort of fellow. If it were up to me, anybody managing a business worth over $500 Billion would have to hold a license indicating their education and moral qualifications. There’s too many lives at stake. If the Driver of a supertanker needs four licenses in order to command the deck, how come the CEO of Citi Group does not need any. If a tanker is too big to let spill, and Citi Group is too big to fail, then why not take some precaution to make sure each is directed by persons of adequate skill and moral worth? By the way they had to clean up 300 million gallons of toxic sludge in Alaska when the Exxon Valdez ran aground there, and the taxpayers of USA will have to clean up 300 billion dollars worth of toxic mortgages now that Citi Group has run aground for the second time in 6 months. Why aren’t these greed monsters subject to some sort of licensing procedure. Why are they on the loose out there? We don’t let rabid dogs roam our streets, we put some controls on them, right. Well that’s all I want for corporate execs, and Sarbanes Oxley is a weak and flaccid noodle — not nearly what’s required — it intervenes way too little way too late. Greed monsters need to be cut off before they sit down in the boardroom. Licensing is the best way — it’s sort of like vetting people before they take on jobs where the whole society can be affected by what they do. CIA officers are extensively vetted. White House appointees are thoroughly vetted. But who vets the CEO of Citi Group? Nobody right? The Directors vote, that’s all, and half the time “They know not what they do”.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 24 November 2008 1530 hrs EST
smrstrauss - November 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Re: “On free markets without much regulation — that’s surely not my belief. I believe in competent and firm regulation. Evil does exist in the world.”
I thoroughly agree. I was thinking of other blogs I have had discussions with.
My offer to write to my congressman stands. I don’t think much will come of it. He’s pretty liberal, but it is worth a try.
I assume you will be doing the same.
Eigernorthface - November 24, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Strauss — I want to tweak my last answer a little bit in case anybody wants to write a law review article based on stealing the idea of licenses for bigtime corporate executives.
There should be about 5 levels of licenses — like there are for airplanes.
1. Level 1 CEO’s of firms capitalized at 100 to 200 Billion.
2. Level 2 CEO’s of firms capitalized at 200 billion to 300 billion.
3. Level 3 CEO’s 300 to 500 Billion
4. Level 4 500 Billion to 1 Trillion
5. Level 5 Over 1 Trillion dollars
These could issued by the SEC — since all these persons are going to be running publicly held corporations, or at least mostly, maybe not Bechtel or UPS, but mostly.
The SEC’s mandate would have to be expanded. Some sort of panel within the SEC would have to be created to be the examiners and deciders. My suggestion is Senior Executive Service only and no burrowers (former appointees turned into Civil Servants). They should have a lot of legal and accounting skill — not all necessarily in the same person, and the panel should have about 9 people on it, or maybe 15.
The corporate Directors, who are often mindless stooges for various blocks of shareholders, who themselves are often non compos mentis drunk with greed, can nominate anyone they want, but only a license holder can fill the position.
Society has a right to protect itself. If it’s going to cost us 25 or 300 billion every time these guys run aground, we should make sure they are fit to run the organizations — the huge organizations — even bigger than the Exxon Valdez, even bigger than Three Mile Island, even bigger than FEMA.
Every other position of huge life-affecting influence in the USA requires a license – why not corporate CEO’s for Companies over $100 billion — five levels of licenses.
They have to have their priorities straight, so they need to be informed about what straight priorities might be like — we need to know that they are — so we need to test them and license them. They must be educated, moral people, who know how to avoid doing the wrong thing.
The noodly noodly Sarbances Oxley is just a gesture toward the barn door after the horse has already escaped — it’s too little, too late. The guys and very brazen people. They don’t care what they sign, what are you gonna do sue em — they’ve got lawyers for that (don’t ask me how I know).
Anyway, food for thought, maybe a dissertation or two, or at least a Law Review Article — maybe in the Princeton Law Journal — oh yea, that’s just right, give them butterflies.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 24 November 2008, 2145 hrs EST
Eigernorthface - November 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I find that the Hawai’i authorities say they have gone back into the vault and examined Obama’s original vault long form birth certificate, and that it is substantively consistent with the COLB which we have seen circulating about on the internet, and that Obama was indedd born in Hawai’i and not somewhere else.
Weighing that evidence is fairly easy. What chance is there that very heavy penalties would come down on the Hawai’i authorities if they were found to be lying about something like that. I think 100% chance, right?
Those authorities allege that there is a long form vault copy and that they have seen it. How risky would it be for them to declare such a thing exists, if it does not exist? Very risky, right. Somebody might come out with a subpoena, or Obama might waive his Privacy Act rights, all kinds of things could happen that would put the Hawai’i authorities in the path of big trouble if they said they had seen and verified and were correctly relaying the substance of a document that did not exist.
Do bureaucrats ordinarily plunge themselves and their careers into huge risks for the sake of people they don’t know? I think not.
If Obama was in fact born in Hawai’i is there anything in the Berg or Keyes complaints that would constitute an ex-patriation?
Not according to the INA law (previously posted by Strauss and by me). That law makes it extremely difficult to expatriate oneself. There’s a very short list of very specific things and they all have to be accompanied by specific intent that is explicit and on the record, not just implied or implicit.
If Obama never lost his citizenship by his travels to Pakistan on and Indonesian passport at age 20, then he never need to take the Oath of Allegiance to recalim his citizenship which was never lost.
If he was born in Hawai’i, which in 1961 was a state, just like any other state, then he was a natural born citizen. The mother’s residency is not relevant — those rules only apply if the baby is born outside the USA, but Hawai’i was inside the USA, so they don’t apply — it doesn’t matter where she lived before Obama was born, or for how long.
Because the Berg and Keyes cases are totally devoid of merit, and because my research into the law and my analysis revealed that to me, I withdrew my approval and support from those cases about a week ago.
Rational people do not persist on a path that is shown to be without merit. Only people whose minds simply cannot be affected by the facts continue to believe things that the facts strongly suggest are not true. When the facts change, I change my mind. I once thought the Berg and Keyes cases were potentially valid. Now the facts have changed, so I don’t think those cases are potentially valid — I think they are clearly invalid and unworthy of my support.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 November 2008, 1210 hrs EST
Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 25, 2008 12:13 PM
Re-Posted to Keyes Site at November 25, 2008 1217 hrs EST
Eigernorthface - November 25, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Surrick’s dismissal was right. Vexacitous litigation is a minor issue. The Constitutional issue are 1. Standing and 2 Political Question (Non-justiciable). The judge had sense enougn to know this was not a minor case of piddling consequence, so he didn’t not dismiss it as a judge might dismiss a minor case of piddling consequence. He picked out a Constitutional basis. He had 2 available. He still has one left. The second is actually stronger than the first.
Even if Berg somehow has standing his case might still be non-justiciable because it’s a “political question” per the US Constitution.
And my own personal opinion is that even if it was tried on its merits in the District Court it would fail because it lacks merit.
If I thought the case had merit, I would want to see it tried. The law does not support Berg’s claims or Keyes’ claims.
So, to my way of thinking these are junk cases, not worth trying.
The Supremes I think will figure this out on December 5th or whenever. They will deny Certiorari as well they should.
We put this in the junk pile. That’s the right place for it in my humble opinion.
Don’t expect that I will keep responding on this issue.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 Nov 2008 2223 hrs EST
Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 25, 2008 10:27 PM
Reposted to Keyes site 25 November, 2008 2235 hrs EST (with minor spelling correction)
Eigernorthface - November 26, 2008 at 4:56 pm
KUDOS FOR SMRSTRAUSS
Good working with you Danney. You learned the same lesson I did, so we learned together. When everything looks like it’s going one way, a lot of times its actually going the other way. Homework is the right idea. You do it with diligence, and you just keep doing it, and if you find while you’re doing it, that everything that seemed one way is actually a different way — that’s the biggest payoff you can get from doing homework diligently — you get saved from making a mistake — you learn something new, like I did, like you did, in our analysis — with the help of Strauss — of this complex matter. Our hats are off to Strauss, and our respect as colleagues in study abides.
This message was approved by Eigernorthface 26 November 2008, 1650 hrs EST
Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 26, 2008 04:52 PM
Re-posted from Berg v Obama Thread at 26 November 2008 1655hrs EST
nickf - November 26, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Just one more question since you guys seems to have wrapped up the forum.
Just where did the State of Hawaii say that he was natural born or born in Hawaii? I have been to many sites that claim what you do, but when you read the actual statement, they NEVER said that.
So Northface, you don’t have to worry about the person saying this going to jail. All she said was whe was tired of answering questions about whether or not there was a birth certificate (original, long form). She said there was. Period. Because of the lockdown by the governor, she was not able to say more. When asked about whether or not the one he posted on his website was valid, she only answered, it looks a lot like mine.
So just like his tax cuts for the middle class, just like his raising taxes for the wealthy, just like his pulling out of Iraq right away – POOF, all gone.
TruthExists - November 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm
When I was a young attorney I went to a seminar by a famous prosecutimg attorney. I remember him saying, “when it comes to evidence think horse, not zebra.”
Evidence: Obama has teams of high priced lawyers doing everything possible to hide his actual birth certificate. Clearly there is something on it that he seriously wants hidden. The idea that he just wants to protect his privacy is not rational, it’s a “zebra”.
J. Parker - November 29, 2008 at 1:34 am
I believe that Obama’s Indonesian born half sister, Maya, also has a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. If so then isn’t the legitimacy of questioning Obama’s COLB obvious?
A separate, completely hypothetical question, neither expressing nor advocating any ill intent: Suppose a person made an attempt on Obama because of their belief he was an usurper of the presidency for failing to provide proof he constitutionally qualified as a natural born citizen. This person would likely use a patriot/defense of the constitution argument. Would all the birth records in question be entered into evidence as part of the defense/prosecution and if they show Obama not to be constitutionally qualified, would a viable defense exist?
Again, just a question. It seems to me that Obama is risking putting a lot of people from the “disagree with him” category into the “out to get him” category.
There are only two possible answers to why he is hiding the complete birth records: 1) There is in fact something he needs to keep hidden or risk losing his power. 2) Obama is doing this as a means to actually increase his power in the long run using Alinsky style tactics.
Either way the man is dangerous.
c1on - November 30, 2008 at 5:03 pm
` http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?id=3324
Don Maccank - December 2, 2008 at 7:42 pm
FOI Request to Pelosi and Obama for birth certificate found at http://www.CountUsOut.wordpress.com
ACTION REQUEST
FOI REQUEST TO NANCY PELOSI AND BARACK OBAMA FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE:
We need to now got to the horse for the information or denial. The various SOS have said it ain’t their job to check qualifications of Presidential candidates. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf
South Carolina SOS saying it is not her job to check Presidential qualifications and letter signed by Nancy Pelosi certifying Obamas qualifications to be President.
http://countusout.wordpress.com/category/freedom-of-information-act-responses-obama-secretaries-of-state/ Rhode Island SOS has statement signed by Barack Obama and declares he is eligible to be President. Do not use titles or office name and send to all locations by fax, email and mail ( use CERTIFICATE OF MAILING” at post office)(you will have proof of mailing and they won’t know)
After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com,
http://www.freerepublic.com,
http://www.peoplespassions.org,
http://americamustknow.com
http://www.rallycongress.com
(and of course http://www.CountUsOut.wordpress.com ) .
1. The address , fax number and email address for everone in Congress is: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. Sit back and wait for answers.
3. GOOD JOB ON THE LAST FOI REQUESTS TO SOS. LET’S FINALIZE THIS THING NOW!!!
____________________________________________________
December 2, 2008
TO: Nancy Pelosi
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0508 and Nancy Pelosi 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3661
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov sf.nancy@mail.house.gov, PH 202-225-4965, FAX 202-225-4188
TO: Barack Obama, 5046 South Greenwood Ave, Chicago, IL 60615 and 201 Russell Senate Office Building , Washington, D.C. 20510-0810 http://obama.senate.gov/contact.cfm
TO: Joe Biden, 1209 Barley Mill Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19807, and 201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0801 DC Phone:202-224-5042DC Fax:202-224-0139 http://biden.senate.gov/services/contact/
REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law Request
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
a. Original birth certificate
b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
If this is not the proper department, please forward to Barack Obama.
I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.
Sincerely,
Robert Johnson
123 Main St
Anywhere , CA
Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
FAX: (209) 479-3021, emai: meritsbriefs@supremecourt.gov
CC:Federal Election Commission Attn: FOIA Requester Service Center Room 408, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 Fax #(202)219-1043, email: FOIA@fec.gov,
WARNING
Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.
Wolfladyk - December 6, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Some of you are absolutely lost in this matter! Most actually!
1) Hawaii DID not verify he was born in Hawaii…only that they had they long form. BTW, Obama had the Governor “seal” the long form when he visited his sick Grandmother shortly before her death.
2) Donofrio did NOT say Obama was born in Kenya! That is Berg! Donofrio’s case is based on the fact that both parents must be U.S. citizens, even naturalized will work, BEFORE the birth! Obama has admitted he was a British Subject at birth! Therefore, he cannot be “natural born.” His own website refers to him as “native born” but NOT natural! As a British subject with a British father, he could not EVER be “natural-born” regardless of being born in Hawaii!
3) He was adopted by his step-father, and renounced his citizenship. I have a copy of his school registration that verifies his Indonesian citizenship and Muslim as his religion which is NOT saying that he isn’t now a Christian either. However, it DOES say that he gave up his citizenship as a child and NO EVIDENCE exists it was ever reinstated correctly!
4) He traveled on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan as an adult for heaven’s sake! He still hides his school records that some school employees have said “anonymously” indicate he went to school in the U.S. as a FOREIGN student who got foreign aid from perhaps two different countries!
In other words, he worked the system and worked it very well. He also hopes that the cases will be all dismissed for “lack of standing” but they won’t be! The American people are finally starting to demand answers to ALL of these citizenship questions. Andy Martin DID sue as a person of the media! There are now 17 cases filed and more pending and this will be a constitutional crisis at some point! His inauguration will NOT make the questions or the law suits disappear and eventually someone will dig out the truth on each issue.
What makes anyone think a Democrat will take over if Obama is not given the electoral vote? THINK people! The banksters and Wall Street gave him over 80 percent of his funds. Bush has already declared another “State of Emergency.” A Constitutional crisis and some rioting in the streets and we will have martial law with Bush staying in office until a “do-over” election is held and probably not immediately either…too much money in a bad economy or some other nonsense excuse.
The saddest part is that Obama has perpetrated this fraud against the American people by refusing to prove who he IS and could very well be the reason that thousands (hundreds of thousands even) of minority voters die if they take to the streets in protest. ALL of the people who filed these suits are aware of this possibility and are doing what they are doing to PREVENT such violence and to defend the law! Read all of the suits in detail! I have. Read all of the court records in detail! I have. Read about Hawaii’s “loop hole” law that enables citizens NOT born in Hawaii to be issued birth certificates if ONE parent is an American citizen! I have, and yes, that is how his half-sister has the exact same COLB that he does! Even though she WAS born in Indonesia.
And if the Christian Bishop who posted here is telling the truth (which I no reason to assume he isn’t) then Obama could actually be a Muslim “ringer” who does not have the best interests of America at heart! WHERE IS THE TRUTH AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH THAT ONLY OBAMA CAN SUPPLY?
If he has perpetrated fraud, he should be arrested and jailed. If he sticks us with 2-4 more years of George W. Bush, I hope he gets a life sentence!
Something is very fishy and stinks in Chicago these days.
nickf - December 6, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Wolfladyk,
You have a number of fallacies in your post.
1) The governor of Hawaii is a Republican and he didn’t hide Obama’s BC. The Hawaiian laws say that it is not public information and only those with valid standing can get that document. His sealing the document was merely following the law and to make his people understand that leaks would not be tolerated. Obama, I believe, had nothing to do with it.
2) Your worry about Bush being allowed to stay on is totally unfounded. The 22nd Amendment would not allow for it. A President is limited to two terms total. If Obama were to be disqualified before the 15th of this month, the eledtors would be free to vote for anyone they want. They could all get together and elect Biden or even Hillary. If Obama is selected by the electors (in other words after 15 December) and were to be disqualified, depending on the decision and how it was reached to disqualify him, wither Joe Biden would be President or the House of Representatives would elect the next President. Either way, I don’t see how either Bush or any Republican could be President.
A.W. - December 7, 2008 at 12:03 am
Sheesh guys, give up this post.
i’ll say it again. trust but verify. i am sure he is a natural born citizen, but i want verification.
That’s all.
Rosebud - December 7, 2008 at 7:42 pm
If Barry is a Natural born citizen then why did he admit to Allen Keyes in the 2004 Illinois Senate race debates that he was not? Barry stated that he was not running for President, only a U.S. Senate seat at the time. Also, why hide the truth if it is the truth? He has destroyed YOUR constitution.
I am going to nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for 2012. at least we know the truth about him. And he WILL win. All the little 18 year olds will vote and then we will have Arnold for the Presidentanator.
Rosebud - December 7, 2008 at 7:43 pm
If Barry is a Natural born citizen then why did he admit to Allen Keyes in the 2004 Illinois Senate race debates that he was not? Barry stated that he was not running for President, only a U.S. Senate seat at the time. Also, why hide the truth if it is the truth? He has destroyed YOUR constitution.
I am going to nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for 2012. at least we know the truth about him. And he WILL win. All the little 18 year olds will vote and then we will have Arnold for the Presidentanator.
David Fry - December 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Almost nobody but a small handfull of, sorry to use the term butit applices, “wackos”, is paying attention to this issue. I hate to say it but I’d have to include myself in that category since I’m actually contributing to this forum.
Given that, there is no upside at this point for Obama to do anything other than what he is already doing/not doing. The “birthers” will never be satisfied and the courts will never overturn this election because of this specific issue. NEVER!!! It would be stupid of Obama to do anything else under those circumstances. The only way Obama might do anything different is if this issue starts showing up as something the public cares about.
In any case, a friend of mine who is an attorney, worked for immigration and nationalization for 15 years. He says that under the immigration laws that existed in 1961 and are in effect now, Obama would be a citizen of the United States even if he was born out of the country. “If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the United States were after your citizen parent’s 14th birthday. Those 5 years do not have to have been before your birth”. That make Obama a citizen. I’m going to trust my friend on that.
nickf - December 8, 2008 at 9:08 pm
DAvid,
I am one ofthose wackos. My son was born in 1968 in an Army Hospital in Germany. I had to drive to Franksort to our consulate there. My wife and I are both American born and raised. He was born on an Army base to US medical doctors. The consulate told us that he had dual citizenship for which we could renounce the German citizenship for him. The also told us at that time that he cold never run for President. I have talked to numerous other vets in similar situations and they were told the same thing.
I never knew McCain was born overseas. It may be true that he is not natural born also. The big difference between us and him, however, is that the canal zone was considered an American possession at the time. I don’t know how that plays into the equation but it is possible that he wasn’t.
However, the biggest difference between McCain and Obama is not the differences in their birth, but in the way they handled the question of their birth. McCain took his documentation before congress. In a bi-partisan, unanimous decision, the Senate passed a Sense of the Seante that he was natural born. Whether this passes legal muster, I don’t know. But Obama is still hiding his.
I don’t need to see it. But it sure would be nice if he turned it over to an authority that was bi-partisan and could speak to the people about it. It could be the Senate Ethics Committee, SCOTUS, whoever.
Until he does this, I will be a “Democrat” in action for the next 4 years. I will never call him ‘my President’. I haven’t decided yet what I will call him. Maybe that Brit, or maybe that Kenyan guy. You know, as opposed to that guy that stole the election. I think I am starting to like Brit though!!
Lisef - December 23, 2008 at 4:33 am
David, according to what I read, yes, you have to count those five years PRIOR to the birth of the child. Nickf, the good news is that your son CAN run for president.
“What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November
13, 1986?
Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as
one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.
When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent
must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five
of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was
created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.
While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was
resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out
of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning
21.”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web704.pdf
I am not an American citizen, but I find weird that laws of other countries regarding transmission of citizenship may define who is a natural born citizen in America and who isn’t. For instance, Italian laws recognize as Italian citizens children born abroad up to the third generation. Would that mean that grandchildren of Italians born in the USA could NOT run for president? Justice Scalia, for instance, because he MAY held dual citizenship, would not be a natural born American?
I find curious that anyone believes that an 18 year old pregnant girl would travel to Kenya, during the independence period, not very calm, mind you, just a couple of months before giving birth. And, according to what I read, it was not hte parents who tell the newspapers about the birth of Obama, but usually it was the hospitals themselves which releases these notes to the press.
nickf - December 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Lisef,
You ought to go to the websites that are arguing whether or not McCain is a natural born citizen.
One of the things that everyone seems to miss is that the 14th Amendment, for example, does not say that your are natural born, just by being born here, it merely states that you have citizenship. There is only one place where the phrase natural born is used and that is in Article II, Section 1.
Two of the great influences on the founding fathers were De Vattel and his book “Laws of Nations” and Blackstone’s writings on English Common Law. Their take on defining natural born are night and day. According to Blackstone, mere birth in country makes one natural born. It doesn’t matter what your parents were. De Vattel defines a natural born citizen as one born in the native country to parents who are citizens (notice the plural). Now the problem with Blackstone, which is quoted by the left as the more probable of the two, is that he is not referring to citizenship. He is referring to subjects. you cannot arbitrarily replace the two words and have the same meaning. Look it up and try it. Citizens are NOT subjects. Citizens do not owe allegience because of feudal ties.
So, in my book, and unfortunately, no one wants to take this on, both of Obama’s parents needed to be citizens in order for him to be elibible for the Presidency. This would have been the ‘known’ meaning of the phrase ‘natural born’ at the time.
lisef - December 25, 2008 at 1:07 am
Nickf, if you are right, then there is no question with Obama’s document. His father was NOT American, therefore, even if he was born in Hawaii, he would still not be a natural born citizen. The birth certificate is irrelevant. This is Donofrio’s basis for the lawsuit.
My point remains, though, and in this point, the distinction between subjects and citizens is irrelevant, since we are following (according to your definition) de Vattel’s requirements of citizenship, with no other possible claim to allegiance. Children and Grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of Italian immigrants could be subjects AND citizens of Italy, even if born in the USA. (I am myself a great-grandchild of a Italian Imigrant to South America and I have an Italian passport as if I had been born in Italian soil). Jews are potentially citizens of Israel. Irish-Americans (up to the third generation) are potentially citizens of Ireland. None of those could be eligible to be the president of the USA. Also in this version, neither could Chester Arthur (whose father was an Irish immigrant)
Andrew Jackson’s both parents were born outside the United States, but he was born before the Constitution was signed, so I supposed the two-parent rule does not apply. Buchanan, however, had at least one of his parents born outside the USA – probably both, I was not able to find out. And he was born after the COnstitution was adopted. Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in Carslile, Scotland. Herbert Hoover’s mother was also not born in the USA. It is very likely (I don’t know well the American laws) that marriage conferred citizenship upon the foreign-born wives in the nineteenth century, but it is also likely that they would retain their original citizenship as well, at least before their own countries. I found doubtful that, considering these precedents, the supreme court would considered that natural born citizen refers only to children born in the USA to both US citizen parents. Besides, it does create a limbo for all those children of immigrants (and we are talking about a basic element of the AMerican Dream here): if they are not natural born, and they have not gone through a process of naturalization, what are they?? Does the US have a third category of citizen, not-so-natural-born citizens?
nickf - December 25, 2008 at 11:45 pm
lisef,
Not knowing where you are from, all I can say is that Blackstone’s definition of natual born, probably would not be the accespted one since it talks of subjects (those under the protection of the crown) as opposed to citizens (those that elect the government).
After the 2000 election in which SCOTUS found the Florida Supreme court in oppostion to accepted ‘Constitutional’ law by a vote of 7-2. most people think it was another of those 5-4 votes which it definitely was not. The 5-4 vote was on the remedy, not the basic issue. And the most basic issue was never raised. That being that the Florida Supreme Court, other than defining the state’s constitutionality of the legislature’s was in error by changing the laws. The only body mentioned in the Federal Cosntitution is the state legislature. And the only ability the state judicial system had to deny those laws was to declare them unconstitutional, which the Florida legislature never did.
What is funny about this whole issue, is that more has actually been made out of McCain’s problems than Obmama’s. (Just look at websites talking about these issues). But no one knows now what is meant by natural born. Look up the references to Arthur and you would probably feel like a person not naturally born became President. That does not change the law, it only means that someone got beyond it nand should not have. Wilson’s mother, unless I am wrong and some of the websites I have visited are wrong was a citizen at the time of his birth. Also, even if that is wrong, at the time, women had no vote, and therefore their citizenship did not matter. It was the citizenship of the father that did.
The whole natural born clause was inserted in the constitution for a couple of reasons.
1) The founding fathers did not want a person that was not totally ‘American’, (other than themselves) to have the ability to be C-I-C.
2) Maybe even more than that, they never wanted someone tainted with ‘British’ blood to be eligible to be President.
Obmama was born to a Kenyan citizne. At the time of his birth, Kenya was a British protectorate. If there was anyone the founding fathers did not want to be President, it was Obama!!
nickf - December 26, 2008 at 12:00 am
Lisef,
I was re-reading my response to your post. I missed a most significant portion of my response upon reflection.
Yes. If you are to consider De Vattel’s definitions then
1) There are natural born citizns. Those born to parents (plural) on the national ‘turf’.
2) There are citizens. Born to a singularcitizen on the national turf.
3) Citizens born to at least one citizen on foreign turf (McCain?).
4) Naturalized citizens that become citizens of a country only because they want to.
5) Aliens. All of the rest.
Natural born is significant in two ways.
1) The Constitution as written, specifies citizenship requirements for office only for the Congress and the Presidency, I believe. It does not for the judiciary.
2) For Congress, both the Senate and House, the language allows for both foreign born, dual citizenship people to be eligible for office as well as naturalized or natural born citizents.
3) The only pace where the ‘natural born’ phrase makes its appearance is that of the executive. When you read the debates of the executive, there is only one meaning available and that is de Vattel’s.
Lisef - December 26, 2008 at 5:22 am
“If there was anyone the founding fathers did not want to be President, it was Obama!!”
Obama is black. Of course the founding fathers would not want him to be President.
The idea of “tainted British blood” does not make much sense to me – most of the presidents of the USA have been of British or Scottish or Irish descent. The founding fathers would have been much more committed to prevent Asians, Italians, Spaniards, Jews and Indians from getting to the Presidency, considering the spirit of the times. Many among them were of British ancestry or birth. Frankly, I think the founding fathers deserve more credit in this question of blood, exactly for NOT putting forward any restriction. In fact, I could even make the opposite argument and say that, considering the efforts of the founding fathers to support Canadians uprisings against the Crown, they would be more willing in accepting as a citizen someone from a fellow British colony struggling against the “British oppression” than a citizen from Spain or France, for instance.
On another point, according to what I read, most of the allegations against Arthur were connected to the possibility that he also could have been born in foreign soil (Canada). the fact that his father was not a citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth was not taken seriously as an obstacle.
Keep in mind also that there is a contradiction in your argument. If women could not vote, and therefore their citizenship did not matter, then de Vattel’s emphasis on American parents (plural) does not make sense. If only one parent (male) is enough, then the courts would necessarily update de Vattel’s concept for more enlightened gender relations, and one parent (male or female) would be enough. Furthermore, depending on the foreign country’s law, women may not vote, but they may transmit citizenship. This was the case of Switzerland until 1971. Swiss women could not vote, but if they had a child abroad, this child would have their citizenship.
I insist in my previous points, though. First, if the problem is jus sanguinis (Obama’s ancestrality), then the whole question of birth certificates is absolutely irrelevant. Second, many countries allow the transmission of citizenship for more than one generation. Thus a child of both American-born parents (but with foreign grandparents or greatgandparents) may still have claim to a foreign citizenship – would that preclude her/him from running for President?
Although you are right and the concept natural born citizens is not well defined, the concept of “citizen at birth” is defined in regulations. You are saying that Obama might be a citizen at birth (because he was born in American soil) but not a “natural born American” (because his father was not an American citizen). I doubt this distinction would stand in court.
(At the same time, thank you for answering my questions and doubts. Although I am not convinced by the argument, it is interesting food for thought).
nickf - December 30, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Lisef,
The 14th Amendment in effect, defines native born, not natural born. Your whole argument about the idea of accepting British born flies in the face of exactly what the debates for the Constitution pointed out again and again. The Anti-Federalists did not want ‘an’ executive, they wanted a ruling council of executives. The Federalists themselves were afraid of the executive. They were always worried that the executive could abuse his position, grab too much authority and become a dictator, or allow the goverment to be given back to Britain by him. Thus the separation of powers, and thus the natural born clause. They wanted an executive that could not possibly have any allegiance to any country other than the USA and most especially they would not want one that had a British citizenship.
I am also sort of offended by your opening that our dislike of Obama and our dislike of him avoiding the rules is racist in character. You may believe anything you like, that is your right. But I am getting so tired of him and his supporters screaming racism at any slight against him. So much for the uniter, not divider, I guess.
nickf - December 30, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Lisef,
One other thing I forgot (You have to forgive me, as I have gotten older this happens more and more, LOL).
De Vattel’s book was written in 1760. This was long before the American government was even conceived here. The book is the “Laws of Nations” and was written as a political discourse of what a good government should be, how it would interact with other countries, and providing definitions for that interaction. So his statement about parents was not focused on America but on countries in general.
The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” has been attributed by a lot of people to Locke. But his statement was actually “life, liberty, and property”. The original statement is more in accordance with De Vattel’s philosophy than with Locke or Blackstone.
Forseti - January 7, 2009 at 12:16 am
Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a “Certification of Live Birth,” which he posted on his website under the title: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.”
At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. To date, he has refused to produce his 1961 birth record, despite numerous lawsuits (Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).
To understand what this 1961 birth record is that he refuses to produce, one needs to understand Hawaiian “Birth Certificates.” An analysis of Hawaiian Birth certificates is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian 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 or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.
To sum it up, Mr. Obama produced a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth (a summary), and posted it on his website. He called it his “Official Birth Certificate,” but did not disclose that it derives from a 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. Furthermore, it is not yet publically known whether this Certification of Live Birth derives from a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician), or a 1961 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital, and could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth). Moreover, Mr. Obama refuses to release this 1961 birth record to clear this up, despite numerous lawsuits asking him to do so. Furthermore, neither the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, nor any court in the United States has subjected his birth certificate evidence to any level of scrutiny. For all intents and purposes, they have just accepted the 2007 computer-generated, laser printout of the summary document Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen.
Mr. Obama’s birth certificate does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President. However, the most important foundation question is what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? In determining which standard of proof applies, it important to remember that the goal is to set a stable standard of proof that ensures that, we the people, will get a qualified presidential candidate, no matter who he is, no matter which party he is from, no matter what political climate dominates the times, and no matter in which election year he runs for office.
Turning now to the foundation question of what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.
The answer to this burden of proof question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.”Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999). Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.
It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.
Once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.
The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”
So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion – preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Let’s examine each standard and choose the one that is best suited to ensure that only a qualified President elect becomes President.
Preponderance of the Evidence – (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases, e.g., personal injury lawsuits.
If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard therefore does not seem high enough.
Clear and Convincing Evidence – (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. This standard also does not seem high enough.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants to ensure that an innocent person is not deprived of his life or liberty. True, the Presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justifications for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard are not for proving the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that an innocent person does not lose his life or liberty. Ensuring that these freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections rings throughout the justifications for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard being applied to presidential candidates so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required of him.
At this point, I would like to conclude that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard should apply to the President elect, but unfortunately, I do not get to decide this issue. Who then, should determine which standard applies? Moreover, who gets to interpret it?
Should the states get to decide this question? If you look to state law for deciding which burden of persuasion applies, then a problem arises because one might foresee not all states using the same burden of persuasion. One might also expect to find up to 50 different interpretations for each of the three burden of persuasion standards. This could result in as many as 150 different interpretations for the three standards. It’s arguable then, that having as many as 3 different standards with up to 50 different interpretations of each one could lead to 150 different possible ways to qualify a presidential candidate. Arguably, this outcome would favor some candidates over the others, with each election year providing for unequal treatment of the candidates depending upon from which state’s record each candidate seeks to establish his birth (or age), and resulting in unequal risk to the nation that an unqualified President would be elected.
Imagine if one state uses a preponderance of the evidence standard while the other state uses beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Who has the advantage here and what are the risks to the nation and its citizens? Let’s assume that two states require clear and convincing evidence, but one state interprets clear and convincing to mean less than the other state’s interpretation. The end result would be unequal treatment of the candidates resulting in different states having the power to gain an advantage over the other state’s candidate by lessening or lowering the burden of persuasion and weakening its interpretation. Furthermore, there would be an increased opportunity for planting fraudulent birth records in the states with the weakest burden of proof that have the highest incidents of uncontrolled illegal immigration.
So where does this leave us? Should each state decide what is their native candidate’s burden of persuasion? Or should each state agree to have one standard for all candidates? Who gets to decide which standard applies, and who gets to interpret the standard?
Perhaps we should look to the federal courts to establish a standard instead? Keep in mind that the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is a federal one. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the office of President is one of the three federal branches of government. Perhaps that as such, there should be a federal standard of proof that ensures that only a candidate who meets the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution could become President.
Once again, problems arise. There are 13 federal circuit courts in the U.S. Each one could cause the same selection and interpretation problems that were just discussed with the states. Only this time, the candidates would get their advantage or disadvantage by being born in a particular circuit, thus making circuits more or less appealing to the candidates and their respective parties. Furthermore, circuits with a history of identification document fraud by foreign nationals might be more likely to erroneously qualify a foreign born national to be a Presidential candidate. Again, different circuit standards would result in unequal treatment of the candidates, and unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.
Should we leave it to the Federal Election Committee (FEC)? No. The FEC filed a motion to dismiss in the Berg case admitting that it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.
What about leaving it to the candidate’s respective party? Should such a bias organization decide the issue of their candidate’s eligibility? Allowing such a process would be tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.
What about leaving it to the Electors? Are they any less bias than their respective parties?
What about the United States Supreme Court? The first paragraph of their own website makes the following promise to the American People – “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
If the Court has this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect? Before, during or after the election? Should it be barred from deciding this issue because of timing, i.e, the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late? Perhaps we should turn to the 20th Amendment for guidance.
“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment does allow for the possibility that a President elect might not qualify. The language of the Amendment suggests that the qualification period can come between the period when the candidate wins the election and when he is sworn in. As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it’s arguable that the Court must scrutinize the President elect’s natural born citizen evidence during this time period. If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,…?” Furthermore, what will be the fate of the Constitution, the Court, and the country if it is later discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen? Will every treaty, law, military act become void ab initio? Will the nation be launched into a state of civil unrest and unyielding division?
As of this post, the Court has not granted a writ to hear the Berg v. Obama case. While we are waiting for this historic news, perhaps we should at least look at Mr. Obama’s only submitted evidence of being a natural born citizen – the posted 2007 computer-generated laser-printed “Certification of Live Birth” on his website. So let’s review the facts and his evidence, and then apply the burdens of persuasion. I used my general interpretations of each burden of persuasion since there is no clearly defined one being applied by anyone else, anywhere.
Preponderance of the Evidence – No. What is a computer-generated printout like Obama’s Certification of Live Birth? It is a hearsay document that is susceptible to the perils of computer viruses, trojans, spyware, hackers, and chain of custody issues? Read about Computer Records and the Federal Rules of Evidence on the Department of Justice’s website.
Furthermore, since it is not clear from which 1961 document this printout derives from, the one with the doctor’s signature and other traceable evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), or the one fraught with the potential for fraud, including registering an out of the country birth as an in state birth after the birth (Certificate of Hawaiian Birth), it’s arguable that either source is no more likely than the other, so it does not appear to satisfy this more likely than not standard.
Clear and Convincing Evidence – No. If the Certification of Live birth doesn’t satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – No. One would need to feign ignorance and act with the utmost bad faith to argue that a Certification of Live birth proves that he was born in Hawaii beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, since it doesn’t even satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.
This is where the road to the White House should end for Mr. Obama. He can not meet any burden of persuasion for becoming President with only a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth. Unfortunately however, to date, not one single person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government has subjected his Certification of Live Birth to any burden of persuasion scrutiny to determine if he meets the United States Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement to be President.
I’ll close this post with a quote: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Copied with permission from http://www.vibe.us
Jane-101 - January 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Dr. Sun Yat-Sen “Father of Modern China” (and born in China) has a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Maya Soetoro (Obama’s sister) has a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii yet she was born in Indonesia. I think the question is rather simple. If the American people (even a small amount of us) want to see the records, we should be shown the records. Regardless of those who blindly want to put him in office, it is our right to know his credentials. Even Obama supporters should be concerned about circumvention of our Constitution considering what has been happening over the past 8 years.
jazzie - January 25, 2009 at 11:46 pm
eloowww poh..:)
smrstrauss - January 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Re: Maya Soetoro (Obama’s sister) has a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii yet she was born in Indonesia. I think the question is rather simple. If the American people (even a small amount of us) want to see the records, we should be shown the records. Regardless of those who blindly want to put him in office, it is our right to know his credentials. Even Obama supporters should be concerned about circumvention of our Constitution considering what has been happening over the past 8 years.
Answer. The difference between Maya Soetoro’s Certification of Live Birth and Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is that Maya, who was born in Indonesia, has a Hawaiian Certification that says on it “born in Indonesia,” while Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth says “born in Honolulu.”
Yes, you can get a birth certificate in Hawaii if the child was born outside of Hawaii. (You could NOT do that when Obama was born; the law was passed later.). But, no, it cannot lie about the place of birth.
Re: “If the American people (even a small amount of us) want to see the records, we should be shown the records.”
Obama has posted the only birth record that Hawaii issues. I know that there were original birth certificates, but Hawaii does not issue them to people asking for their birth certificates. They have repeatedly told me by e-mail that they only issue the computer-generated certification of live birth. So, unless Obama has kept a copy of his original, and has not lost it, the only document that he can post is the certification of live birth.
But not to worry, the Certification of Live Birth CANNOT legally say anything that is different from what appears in the files with regard to the place of birth. So, since the Certification of Live Birth says “born in Honolulu” the original must say that too.
So why doesn’t he post the original?
Because:
1. Unless he has the original and has not mislaid it, he cannot get it—unless he sues to get it, or asks for a special favor (and they might not give it to him even if he asked for it as a special favor. The government of Hawaii is under a Republican governor.)
2. The COLB is a legal document, accepted by the US state department for issuing passports.
3. If Obama could post the original, the opponents would not accept it. They would claim that it also is forged.
4. It would make the opponents happy, and Obama has no desire to make them happy.
5. It is possible for opponents to get the information they seek in another way. For example, if they believe that Obama was born in Kenya, what can prove or disprove that is to get records (if there are any) of the US government issuing a visa or a passport to baby Obama in Kenya to get him from Kenya to Hawaii. If there is no visa nor passport, then Obama could not have been born in Kenya.
6. Information about the issuing of a visa or passport to Obama, if such a thing were done, would be available at the US State Department and could be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Leave a Reply