On December 5, 2008, Michelle Malkin said:
Alas, Trutherism thrives on both the left and right. Which brings us to the spate of lawsuits challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.
It is a fact that Obama’s own ”Fight the Smears” web site admitted that he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject (not U.S. Citizen) at the time of the son’s birth. If Obama was also born with U.S. citizenship, then he was born a dual citizen.
Do you overlook the fact that Obama himself admitted that he was born a British subject?
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
And in their response, FactCheck.org made another error that Leo Donofrio forced them to admit.
Michelle continued:
There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?)
I’m glad that Michelle acknowledges that there “may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here”. But note the the requirement for president is not a “citizenship” requirement (that requirement applies to Senators and Representatives), but rather a “natural born citizenship” requirement. There is an important difference between the two terms, and you would do well to research that difference. There were three different candidates who were on the 2008 Presidential ballot illegally because none of them are natural born citizens of the United States.
And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Yes, but look what TerriK and Leo Donofrio are currently investigating:
Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.
Michelle continues:
But a dangerously large segment of the birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.
Have you considered this fact regarding Obama’s birth certificate… the only person who has been willing to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, has been Lucas Smith, who swore the following under oath about an Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate:
“The true and correct photocopy of the birth certificate obtained is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A. I declare, certify, verify, state and affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true and correct.”
Michelle continued:
Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged.
“Barack Obama’s COLB” was first presented as a digital image posted on Daily Kos, (not his campaign web site), and it was posted there within minutes of a mostly blank COLB template and the clearly forged COLB of “Haye I.B. Ahphorgerie“. Doesn’t that seem a bit “fishy” to you?
They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there.
A birth announcement in a newspaper is insufficient evidence for an I-9 form.
If a newspaper birth announcement is not acceptable documentation for an I-9 form, why should it be acceptable for the highest office in this country?
A birth announcement in a newspaper is insufficient evidence that anyone was born where the newspaper says. Multiple commenters have said that their own birth was reported in newspapers in places other than where they were born. It’s simply not an acceptable piece of “evidence”.
(Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?).
That’s snarky and totally irrelevant. Even if he were born in Kenya, his grandparents may have wanted him to have U.S. citizenship. There are many reasons why people desire U.S. citizenship, and becoming President in the future is probably the very least of reasons.
And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.
No, just part and parcel of those who seem willing to trust sources that have proven themselves unstrustorthy.
I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil.
Barack Obama has yet to show a birth certificate with a delivering doctor’s signature, proving he was born on U.S. soil. And, our founders understood “natural born citizen” to mean born with no allegiance owed to any other country. That meant born on U.S. soil to two U.S. Citizen parents. Why? Because birth on U.S. soil to a non-U.S. citizen parent introduces allegiance owed to another country. This is clearly shown by the fact that Obama admits that he was born a British subject! Can you honestly believe that the founders would have been OK with a British subject becoming Commander-in-Chief of our entire military?
I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew – not Bush and Cheney – perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?
I never thought you were a “kooky conspiracist”… just someone who hasn’t taken the time to honestly evaluate all of the relevant details regarding Obama’s ineligibility.
——————————————–
UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin said in her post:
…at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
That is not true. When a U.S. Senator claimed “Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that President Obama was born in Hawaii”, here is what Leo Donofrio had to say:
tell him Mr. Donofrio never “conceded” Obama was born in Hawaii. It is my opinion he was, but I still demand proof that he was born in Hawaii and the Hawaii authorities have not proved they can be trusted with the administration of their own open government laws. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not say why my case was not accepted – it was an emergency stay pertaining to the national election – not a petition for Cert on the nbc issue. It may have been a procedural issue which caused them to deny the stay application. Please ask the public servant to refrain from using my name in response and to refrain from making assumptions about my case which SCOTUS has NEVER spoken about.
This quote from Leo Donofrio can be found in the bold yellow print here, in this comment on Leo’s blog on October 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM.
October 1, 2009 at 12:05 am
Ryan, how do you explain Fukino and Okubo breaking the law right now?
October 1, 2009 at 2:34 am
What law are they breaking? Specifically what laws? I want actual laws, and actual evidence that they are breaking them. You are actually making an accusation that, if unfounded, could be libellous.
October 1, 2009 at 9:15 am
Ryan, I can’t speak for “Mr. Pill”, as you like to call him, but as for myself, the reasons for my continued interest in the “natural born citizenship debate” of Obama are twofold:
First, because Obama promised “transparency”, and he cannot possibly be unaware of the continued controversy, and secondly (and to me, most importantly), because of the very symbolic nature of this issue. As we argue the “constitutionality” of various programs and bills put forth by this President and Congress, the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, where “the buck stops”, is paramount. He is supposed to be the final defender and protector of our precious Constitution.
If Obama truly respects the Constitution, he should put its requirements over his own political ambition, and should not reject or oppose an examination of his eligibility, but rather welcome it, as a sign of respect for its provisions.
I have always personally felt that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and that the birth certificate issue has been a convenient “smokescreen” over the real issue, the definition of “natural born”–that Obama’s father was never a US citizen, so while Obama Jr. is a citizen, he is not natural born and therefore ineligible.
However, the continued lack of “transparency”, the Department of Justice involvement in the various lawsuits, the amount of money Obama has paid private legal firms to step in whenever documents are requested (for example, the subpoena of Occidental College records), etc. (I could go on listing many more examples), is starting to become suspect–that there is something contained in his records that he would rather the public not see. What could it be? Who knows, but don’t the people who elected him and trusted him have a right, and deserve to know? He is an “elected” official, not a dictator or royalty. He works for us, the people.
I agree with Donofrio, we must get past this, so we can continue to press the Courts for a definitive interpretation of Natural Born citizen. And the best way to get past this, is to get the birth certificate: proof of “jus soli” citizenship, so we can press forward on the issue of lack of “jus sanguinis” citizenship.
October 1, 2009 at 11:16 am
Sallyven,
Well said! I agree that the best way to get past this is to first address the issue of proving “jus soli” U.S. citizenship with an ORIGINAL birth certificate, so we can then address the issue that while Obama may have had “jus sanguinis” U.S. citizenship via his mother (but only if he was born on U.S. soil, as she was too young to confer citizenship otherwise), he has already admintted that he was born a “jus sanguinis” British subject via his father.
October 1, 2009 at 11:18 am
Ryan,
Read the Donofrio posts, then come back here and tell me with a straight face that Fukino and Okubo are obeying the law with regards to the release of index records.
October 1, 2009 at 11:51 am
The issue of his birth has been satisfied – for everyone but a small minority. You cannot expect Obama to act on the wishes of each special interest group. The accusations of him spending million in legal fees to hide his birth certificate are simply false. I’ve never seen evidence that he has spent a penny to deny anything.
The state of Hawaii has VERIFIED, as much as any state can verify, his birth in Hawaii. If you think they are lying, then I really don’t know what you will ever believe.
As for the constitutional challenge, face it, most experts disagree on Leo’s interpretation, and evidently, so do most judges. This is following the legal process, and if it fails, it fails.
All that is required for a person to be natural born is that he is born in the country. All the elected officials seem to agree with that, and so far, all the judges, including the Supreme Court.
Pill, Leo’s accusations against the state of Hawaii are very far fetched, and I think you can understand that Fukino and Okubo are probably going to hold their ground until ordered to do something by a judge. They would be breaking other laws if they released any documents to the public that they are expected to keep private.
October 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm
TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3:
Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law.
October 1, 2009 at 9:19 pm
You want a link where Scalia says NBC = jus soli?
Did you not read the link that I provided in my first post on this thread? Oral arguments in a case presented before the Supreme Court?
It must be hard work ignoring all the real facts and believing only what Leo tells you.
October 1, 2009 at 9:37 pm
More real case law that refutes your rather ridiculous “allegience” argument:
From State vs Adams in Iowa Supreme Court – 1876:
By the common law allegiance is not a matter of individual choice. It attaches at the time and on account of birth and under circumstances in which the family owe allegiance and is entitled to protection. A person may be domiciled in one place or country and owes allegiance to and be a citizen of another. The fact that plaintiff’s grandfather made his permanent domicile in Canada does not of itself prove him to be an alien. Even if he was regarded as a British subject this would not necessarily make him an alien. The laws of the United States determine what persons shall be regarded as citizens irrespective of such persons pleasure or the laws or pleasure of any other government.
Calais vs Marshfield (1844)
Although the government of one country may grant to persons owing allegiance to that of another, the rights and privileges of citizenship, it is not intended to intimate that the government making such grant would thereby, and without their consent or change of domicil, become entitled to their allegiance in respect to any of their political duties or relations.” Calais v Marshfield 30 Maine Rep 520. [As cited in Field Int. Code.]
And since you are citing Wong Kim Ark (even though the overwhelming majority of credibly lawyers believe it completely destroys your argument) – here is another choice quote from the decision:
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.” “
October 7, 2009 at 9:42 pm
You guys have too much time on your hands. Nothing you do or say here is going to force Obama to resign or be impeached. But it’s probably better you are distracted by this than something of substance.
June 5, 2010 at 10:59 pm
That wasn’t the only anomaly she found… follow the link for more.
July 3, 2010 at 8:49 am
On 2010/06/16 at 10:44 pm, in a comment on a different thread, I said:
And now this is in the news…
I have said this many, many times before, and I’ll say it again:
You cannot equate “subjects” and “citizens”. They are two very different things.
And you cannot equate “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. They are two very different things.
March 4, 2011 at 10:39 am
As to Dr. Fukino’s first News Release….
March 4, 2011 at 10:40 am
As to Dr. Fukino’s second News Release….
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
There were just under 5 hours between the chicken (H.Res.593)
and the egg (Dr. Fukino’s second News Release).
On July 27, 2009, the vote on House Resolution 593 came at 6:55pm EDT (12:55pm HST).
And on that same day, Dr. Fukino’s second News Release was first made public in a PDF attachment in an email sent to MissTickly at 11:45pm EDT (5:45pm HST).
September 14, 2011 at 8:11 am
Barack Obama & E-Verify: Obama’s SSA Record DOES NOT VERIFY!