Graphic Defining “Natural Born Citizenship”


From Jefferson’s Rebels, click to enlarge:
NBC Defined Graphic

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

219 Responses to Graphic Defining “Natural Born Citizenship”

  1. Erica says:

    As creator of the graphic portrayed above, I recommend you go back to http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html and download a new image because I have amended it for better clarity.

    You might also be interested in a related article titled “A Final Exam For Professor Obama” at http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/final-exam-for-professor-obama_24.html

  2. Erica says:

    I find it interesting that when I Google to see who might be picking up on my graphic, I find numerous references to it on the WEB (such as this page), but when I Google for IMAGES, this graphic doesn’t appear.

    Does anyone know why this might be happening? Is Google filtering it out deliberately, or is their a technical reason?

    Reminder, this graphic has been revised. The new one is available at http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html

    I’m glad people are using it, but hope those that do will replace the old one with the new image.

  3. Ryan says:

    Depends what you are searching for. Google indexes its image search by the text that surrounds the image, and the text used to link to the page that contains the image. Google’s image search is also way behind the regular search page in terms of getting new things indexed. It can take a while.

    And by the way, your image is actually wrong. A person does not need to have two US citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen, and I challenge you to present any official document from the United States of America that says otherwise.

  4. Erica says:

    Thanks for your comments about Google. As for NBC status, I say you are wrong, and challenge you to make that same statement to attorney Mario Apuzzo, upon whose research I have based this graphic (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/). Apuzzo’s email is under his photo, so you can contact him privately, or you can challenge him by commenting on one of his posts. Either way, if your query is reasoned and reasonable, you will get a reply.

  5. Ryan says:

    I did what you asked, and went to his site. First of all he refers to Obama as BArry Soetero. Mr Obama refers to himself as Barrack Obama, or Barrack Hussein Obama. Any reference to him outside of the same he says is his own is disrespectful, and not becoming of anyone who refers to himself with the suffix Esq. In this society, we call people by the name which they prefer to be called.

    Aside from that, it’s the same old tired arguments, all of which have been heard by judges, and dismissed as unfounded. This gentleman is not going to get any different result, and he brings with him no additional information from what I can see.

    Do some of your own research. As yourself why a person with unknown parental origin, for instance, should be denied the opportunity to become president. If a child is left on the doorstep of a hospital as a newborn, and is raised by an American family, why should she not have the right to lead the country due to her unknown parents? Your rules eliminate eligibility for children with unknown fathers, abandoned babies, and many adopted children with no records of their parents.

    These rules are not printed anywhere in any document that has legal binding in the US. No constitutional amendment has mentioned them and no law has been passed. That means the rules do not exist. You cannot enforce a law that does not have precedence, and is not written down anywhere.

  6. Erica says:

    Ryan,
    You have closed your mind. Furthermore, you lack the courage to talk directly to Mario Apuzzo. You attempt to justify this lack of courage by dismissing him simply because somewhere on the web site amongst the legalese, he referenced Obama’s former name. Lawyers deal with facts, and names are part of the facts, so this is of little concern. Finally, your opinion is full of wishful thinking; nice sentiments, but nevertheless, wishful thinking. I also wish my children could qualify for the presidency, but because their father is a British citizen, they don’t qualify because they have dual citizenship. You may not like what the Framers created, but it is the law.

    For readers who seek the truth, and whose minds still remain inquisitive, let me direct you to these legal arguments. You decide for yourself who’s right: Ryan or Apuzzo?

    The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

    Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

    Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

    ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

    Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

    Dual Nationality

    http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

    And for good measure, legal arguments by Attorney Leo Donofrio regarding “jus sanguinis” and “jus soli”:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/president-obama-admitted-he-waskenyan-born/

    [Note: This comment was initially treated as spam by WordPress (probably due to either the quantity or URL of the links). I had to retrieve it from the spam folder before it would display. — Red Pill]

  7. Erica says:

    Ryan,
    I don’t know if you will actually get a chance to read this note since you have blocked me from making further comments on this blog. Therefore, I have continued the conversation on Jefferson’s Rebels (http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html#comments).

    By the way, you say judges have dismissed these arguments as unfounded. You are wrong. All the recent cases filed by various lawyers have been dismissed on the grounds of “standing”, which means the person(s) bringing the suits were thought not qualified to do so. This has served as a convenient roadblock to discovery, which means NO judge has reviewed the merits of the cases regarding the definition of natural born citizenship, and whether or not Obama qualifies on those grounds alone. The door was slammed shut before the question could be asked of a judge and jury.

    Finally, you say “Your rules eliminate eligibility for children with unknown fathers, abandoned babies, and many adopted children with no records of their parents.” Ryan, please, these are not MY rules. These are the rules laid down by our Founding Fathers. Neither you or I can change the Constitution to match our wishful thinking.

  8. Math says:

    If you’re blocked here, Ryan is probably the last person responsible. The owner here is itooktheredpill, who thankfully doesn’t censor his blog otherwise Ryan and I would be long gone. I doubt he banned you, you should check with him though.

  9. Math says:

    Reading you reply at your blog, I think I understand why your messages don’t come up. Messages with more than 3 links are automatically treated as spam and put in moderation. Wait for red to release them.

  10. Erica says:

    Thanks for your reply Math. I will keep this thought in mind for any future postings.

  11. Ryan says:

    Apuzzo did not call Obama “Barry Soetoro” in the legalese, it’s in the subtitle of his blog. On every page at the top. It’s very disrespectful, and it shows that he has an axe to grind. Those that have an axe to grind are generally, by definition, biased. That’s why I brought it up.

    When things are not written down in the constitution, they are not part of the constitution. You can interpret it anyway you want, but your interpretation conflicts with the interpretation of the courts. If the courts are dismissing the cases on standing, then you might ask yourself why nobody with standing is making the same arguments.

  12. jtx says:

    Ryan:

    You are not correct in your interpretation of the “natural born citizen” term in the United States Constitution. That term is one of the MANDATORY requirements for the Presidency – and Barack Obama has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    This could be done by demonstrating in a court of law heard on the merits that he does meet that requirement. And you are also misinformed in believing that the term of art “natural born citizen” is not defined within the system of US laws – it is as you would have know had you studied the excellent educational essays on the matter at Mario Apuzzo’s site. As shown, the (so-called) “Vattel definition” (2 US citizen parents, born on US soil) appears in many different SCOTUS rulings.

    Pretending that it does not is fanciful indeed. There is also no “axe to grind” about the matter on the Apuzzo site – you seem to be reading things into context that are not there, hoping that they are, somehow, present. They aren’t.

    As for the name of this odd person in history, he will eventually come to be known by his correct legal name (whatever that might be … which we now do not now know since we’ve not seen definitive proof). As a backer of his, I realize you’d like to think his name is “x” or possibly “y”, but in fact it might really be “z” and not yet known. These sorts of questions never arose with anyone elected President in the past – and they MUST be settled correctly to prevent the destruction of the Constitution by Usurpation.

    Erica has a great graphic and you should check her newer version that she mentions.

  13. Jonah says:

    Personally, I think it’s silly to argue about politicians’ names and whether or not they change because of stepparents, and I’ve maintained this position since the Blythe administration.

  14. Erica says:

    A DECLARATION OF WAR On The Biased Mainstream Media has been posted at http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/declaration-of-war-on-biased-mainstream.html

    Within the declaration are comments referencing the media’s mishandling of the NBC issue, among many other complaints about bias, including attacks on McCain and Palin. The declaration puts the media on notice and demands specific, reasonable changes, otherwise they will see their profits continue to plummet.

  15. Erica says:

    I’ve made a companion graphic to the one portrayed here. This one is titled:

    Graphic Defining”Citizen” vs “Natural Born Citizen”. It specifically addresses the citizenship status of Obama’s parents.

    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html

  16. Math says:

    I’ve made a companion graphic to the one portrayed here. This one is titled:

    Erica, don’t take this the wrong way, but what’s the point of those graphics? We all know what your side thinks is a natural born citizen. Do you think we’re so dumb that we need it drawn to us? Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean we don’t understand your position. And drawing it down does not make it any more or any less valid and lawful.

  17. Math,

    It is a fact that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was not a U.S. Citizen.

    It is a fact that if the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II (also known as Barry Soetoro) was born to the people he says are his parents, then he was born a British subject.

    Leo Donofrio has done an excellent job, allong with some researchers at UCONN, of presenting the historical evidence that “natural born Citizen” does in fact mean born in the country to parents who are citizens.

    Nevertheless, you have every right to disagree with Leo, Erica, myself and many others. You can believe that the British citizenship of father and son are irrelevant and believe that as long as the son was born on U.S. soil, then he is a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.A.

    But you can’t deny that while Obama claims to have been born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii, he has yet to release any proof of that claim.

    You can’t deny that Hawaiian officials refuse to show what documents they received in 1961.

    You can’t deny that Hawaiian officials refuse to explain how they came to the conclusion that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen”.

    When I see a document, certified authentic by the Hawaiian government, showing the name and signature of the delivering doctor at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii, then I’ll believe he was born there as claimed.

    But regardless of his birth location, I agree with Erica and Leo and many historical documents which all agree with Vattel’s definition. Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief because his father was not a U.S. Citizen, so Obama was not born a natural born Citizen.

  18. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Here is what the Court of Appeals of Indiana has to say on this issue – you can find the whole text of their decision in Arkeny vs Gov State of Indiana here:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    The pertinent part of their decision:

    [quote]Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.[/quote]

    It doesn’t get much more definitive than that, does it?

    I encourage you to read the whole decision, as it covers all of your arguments relating to Vattel, the differences (or lack thereof) between natural born and citizen at birth etc etc.

  19. Scientist says:

    Frin-The Indiana Appeals Court decision was very clear. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Period. End of story.

    Erica, you really need to distinguish between lawyers like Appuzzo and Donofrio advocating for a position for any of a variety of reasons and judges and legal scholars. Lawyers argue all kinds of nonsense, like “OJ is innocent” or “my client’s blood alcohol was 0.18, but he was OK to drive”. Judges have to sort the nonsense from the real and the Indiana court has done that. Your graphic is lovely, but has no more bearing to reality than a cartoon of Bart Simpson. Sorry.

  20. The Indiana court correctly notes that

    the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen”

    but then wrongly claims that the difference is “immaterial”

    14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

    I also see that they completely ignored the words of the man who became first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, written to the man who was the Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention and became the first President of the United States…

    On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    John Jay was the First Chief Justice of the United States, among many other things, and it was this letter that caused the following requirements to exist in our Constitution:

    The suggestion that “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government” led to:

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    and

    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    The suggestion that the Constitution “declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” led to:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    There is a clear distinction made between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen”.

    “Citizen” was required to be a Representative or Senator, and President if you were a Citizen in 1788 when the Constitution was adopted.

    For anyone who was not a “Citizen” in 1788, the requirement to become President was a more stringent requirement: you had to be a “natural born Citizen”. It was the clear intent of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, that “Foreigners” be excluded from the office of Commander in Chief.

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born the subject of a foreign nation. John Jay warned against just such a foreigner becoming Commander in Chief.

  21. And to top it off, where is the evidence, released directly from the State of Hawaii, proving that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii?

    Without that, Obama has yet to prove that he is even a “Citizen” of the United States.

  22. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Again, I refer you to the decision, who refute your argument regarding John Jay etc with this:

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

    I’ll repeat the most important sentence: Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions”.

    You say the court is wrong. I’m backing their legal knowledge over yours.

    Best go back to that hunt for the mythical Kenyan birth certificate…

  23. One more point… the court said:

    we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.

    I am not an attorney, but it sounds like this passage may be the focal point.

    So, if the Plaintiffs‟ arguments had stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, then what?

    The real place for relief to be granted is a Quo Warranto suit brought in the D.C. District Court.

  24. Frin,

    Best go back to that hunt for the mythical Kenyan birth certificate…

    Please explain how and why you think that the burden of proof falls on us to prove Obama was born someplace other than Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii, rather than on Obama to prove that he was.

    There has been absolutely no documentation released from the State of Hawaii to prove Obama’s claims that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii.

  25. The court was FACTUALLY WRONG in making the following statement:

    For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

    Can you explain why that statement is factually incorrect?

  26. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    The burden of proof ALWAYS falls upon the accusers. Why is it so complicated for you to understand that?

  27. Frin,

    This is not a case of “innocent until proven guilty”.

    It’s a case of “ineligible until proven eligible”.

    The burden of proof for eligibility is on the employee, not the employer.

    Barack Hussein Obama II has yet to fulfil the documentation requirements of The Immigration Reform and Control Act.

    And I’m still waiting for an answer to my last comment. Are you able to find the factual error(s) in what the Court said?

  28. Jonah says:

    Ooh, I know this one! The 44 should be a 76. Am I right?

    Which, of course, completely crumbles the heart of the court’s ruling, which you’ll note on page 16 uses the fact that 44 is a multiple of 11.

  29. Frin says:

    Mr Pill.

    Obama is the President. As far as the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the country, the electoral college and Congress, he is eligible. If you want to remove him via a court ruling (which you can’t, but hey just for fun, lets play this game) – then you, the accuser, must provide proof. Its as simple as that.

    As for your question – given that the natural born clause applies only to Presidential eligibility – then no, there is no factual error in that statement. But hey, I bet you can twist it in some sort of way to show just how stupid this court really is!

  30. Jonah says:

    Frin,

    It applies to vice presidents too. Plus, Obama is only the 43rd person to be president.

  31. Frin says:

    Jonah,

    Ah – Cleveland got me. I now see what you mean, it does completely destroy the court’s ruling. Woe is me.

  32. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill, why are you now demanding proof that Obama was born in a specific hospital? Will you then require the make and model of the gurney his mother was lying on?

    Hawaii, whether you believe it or not, has confirmed that Obama was born in that state on the date he claims as his date of birth. They are under NO obligation to provide further details, as any further details would be irrelevant.

  33. Scientist says:

    Pill-You are indeed a pill. The Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is prima facie valid. That’s Latin for “you lose, pill”. Nothing more is needed to establish birth in Hawaii, which is a state of the US. It is absolutely 100% sufficient for a US passport, a Social Security card and permission to work under the Immigration Act.

    When a cop pulls you over, you show a driver’s license. You don’t show the written driver’s test you took, nor the report from your road test. Nor does anyone care what streets you drove on for the road test.

    The fact that some lawyer puts up a web site is of no legal value whatsoever. All these lawyers you birthers worship have perfect losing records in court.

    A final word. The Constitution rests the ultimate jurisdiction to determine Presidential eligibility with the Electoral College and Congress and that process is over. You are pissing into Hurricane Katrina if you think any court is going to overrule their decision.

  34. Jonah’s 11:26 pm comment gets part of the answer right, but he totally misses the point of why this is important.

    What’s important is that the court misinterpreted the Constitution.
    Not once, not twice, not three times, but four times in just this one sentence:

    For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

    If this were merely a Grover Cleveland “gotcha”, I wouldn’t even take the time to write about it. I don’t give a rip about 43 vs. 44. What I care about is the Constitution.

    The court, in this one sentence, misinterpreted Article II Section 1 (in two ways), and the 14th, 20th, and 25th Amendments. The court missed the point that Jonah understands – that the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement applies to both the President and the Vice-President.

    The court also said, “the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment”… the 14th Amendment does not define “the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen”. The 14th amendment does not even mention the term “natural born citizen”.

    Article II Section 1 makes a clear distinction between “citizen” (the eligibility requirement for those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) and “natural born citizen” (the eligibility requirement for those who were NOT citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). The two terms are not equivalent, and the court was wrong to suggest that the term “citizen” in the 14th amendment is interchangeable with “natural born citizen”.

    The court’s reference to “the forty-four Presidents” implies that “the forty-four Presidents” had to be natural born citizens. Wrong.

    George Washington was not a natural born citizen. Yet he was still eligible to be President because, while he was born a British subject like Obama was, George Washington was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The same logic holds for John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison.

    John Tyler was the first President born after the adoption of the Constitution, and therefore the first President required to be a “natural born citizen”. There were other Presidents who were born natural born citizens but didn’t have to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to be President. They were born on U.S. soil, to two U.S. citizen parents, between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution. The last President eligible for the “grandfather clause” in Article II Section 1 was Zachary Taylor, born in 1784. The court completely missed this point and suggests that “the forty-four Presidents” all had to be natural born citizens. Utterly false.

    When the court said…

    For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

    …not only were they wrong for the reasons I have already mentioned, but the court completely downplayed why the natural born citizen eligibility requirement is highly relevant for the office of President. Let me rephrase their quote and see if it doesn’t shed some light on the situation.

    For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the power and responsibilities of being Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces is irrelevant.

    The “natural born citizen” eligibility requirement is a matter of National Security. Our founders were wise to heed the advice of John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    The natural born citizen requirement is intended to protect us from having someone born with foreign ties becoming the Commander of our entire military.

    Obama was born a subject of a foreign country. Obama spent several formative years growing up with a foreign country as his home. Many of his earliest memories are not of growing up as a U.S. citizen in the U.S.A., but rather growing up in Indonesia, as an Indonesian citizen (see his school registration there). There is not a doubt in my mind that the First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court would say Obama is a foreigner, not a natural born citizen, and is exactly the kind of person who should not be allowed to command our military.

    Obama sets a very dangerous precedent, and the court was wrong to claim that Chester A. Arthur set the precedent. Chester Arthur’s father was a U.S. citizen at the time Chester ran for office, but Chester’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Chester’s birth. Therefore Chester A. Arthur was not a natural born citizen. He knew it, but he concealed and destroyed evidence so that people would not know the truth at the time. Yes, Chester A. Arthur was a usurper, but it was not known at the time he was in office. Obama is different. If Obama is allowed to remain in office, Obama will be the one who sets the precedent. Not Chester A. Arthur, but Barack Hussein Obama II.

  35. Ryan and Scientist,

    I have consistently called for the State of Hawaii to send a certified initial birth certificate, under seal, directly to the members of the United States Congress.

    I have seen nothing but excuses for why this simple due dilligence has not been performed.

    Newspaper birth announcements are insufficient.

    URLs are insufficient.

    A COLB produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters, and only shown to a biased, non-governmental agency, is insufficient.

    Statements made by the Hawaiian Director of Health, without documentary evidence or confirmation that what was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters was authentic, are insufficient.

    Statements made by the Hawaiian Director of Health, where she did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii” in October 2008, but did say “Obama was born in Hawaii” in July 2009 hours AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives voted to say “Obama was born in Hawaii”, are insufficient.

    Statements made by the Hawaiian Director of Health, which required a secret, undisclosed opinion from the Hawaiian Attorney General, are insufficient.

    I have seen nothing but excuses for why there has not been documentary proof of Obama’s birth at the location he has claimed, produced and released by the State of Hawaii.

    I have seen nothing but excuses for why there has been no explanation of how the Hawaiian Attorney General came to the conclusion that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen” (which is not necessarily synonymous with “natural born citizen of the United States of America”).

    I have seen nothing but excuses for the lack of transparency.

    Why should any U.S. citizen be asked to just trust the Hawaiian Director of Health?

    Why should any U.S. citizen be asked to just trust the Obama campaign?

    Why should any U.S. citizen be asked to just trust a newspaper birth announcement?

    Would any of those things be accepted for an I-9 Form?
    No!
    So why should we accept any of those things for the highest office in this country… an office that commands our entire military?

    Call me a pill all you want. This is a matter of National Security, and I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  36. Scientist says:

    And James Madison said the following:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

    Now let me address the “someone with foreign ties”. Every practising Catholic owes allegiance to a foreign organisation, the Catholic Church, based in Rome and headed currently by a German citizen. The local bishops within the US are appointed by the Pope and owe obedience to him. The emotional ties of a practicing Catholic to Rome are re-inforced daily, unlike Obama’s “ties” to Kenya, which he didb’yt vist until well into adulthood. Lest you say that those concern only religious, not political matters, may I point out the spectacle we saw last week of Members of the House getting instructions from the bishops regarding their vote on the health care bill. Yet, since Kennedy adressed that issue, no one seriously argues that Carholics can’t be President. But I would suggest you try that one on the current SCOTUS.

    As far as Chester Arthur, his opponents hired a well-known lawyer, Arthur Hinman, to investigate him. He focused on the possibility of Arthur’s birth in Canada, not on the status of his father, despite the fact that naturalization records were public court documents (at the time in both state and federal courts). Why did he not look at that? Because, I would suggest he did not consider Chester’s father’s citizenship important, but did consider his birthplace important.

    As far as loyalty, what data do you have to suggest that the US-born children of parents with foreign or dual citizenship are any less loyal than those born to US citizens? None I would guess. Nor can you guarantee loyalty of the US-born children of US citizens, else Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker et al wouldn’t be in prison for selling out their country.

    You are pissing into Hurricane Katrina on this one as well. No court is going to intervene in this, as the election was fairly won, the Electoral College voted and Congress ratified the vote without objection. They along with all the many judges who have heard these cases accept the English Common Law definition that served England well for centuries. And in case you are looking to the SCOTUS, your clue should be that, knowing full well about Obama Sr’s citizenship, Chief Justice Roberts swore him in. And if you think the Chief Justice swears someone in and then decides later, on no new information, that he was ineligible, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you will buy.

    Your fellow citizens and their elected representatives and the courts saw it differently from the great and all-knbowing Pill. Get over it.

  37. Scientist,

    1) I don’t “worship” anyone accept the LORD Jesus Christ.

    2) Leo Donofrio doesn’t have a “losing record” at the United States Supreme Court. We don’t even know for sure if the Justices ever discussed the case in conference, or if corrupt assistants merely made the docket look like the case had been discussed in conference. No Justice has spoken nor written any explanation for why Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases were not heard. I would welcome the opportunity for Leo to be given even the chance to lose at the Supreme Court and/or D.C. District Court.

    The Constitution rests the ultimate jurisdiction to determine Presidential eligibility with the Electoral College and Congress and that process is over.

    That process was not followed correctly. Name a single Elector or Congressperson who personally inspected a “prima facie” document sent to them directly by the States of Hawaii. The document you claim as prima facie evidence was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters, not the State of Hawaii. That document also says “Date filed by Registrar”, not “Date accepted by Registrar”. There is a significant difference. Would you like to explain what that difference is, and why “Obama’s COLB” has the word “filed” instead of “accepted”?

    Lastly, the process was not followed correctly when Vice-President Dick Cheney did not ask for objections.

    Not one Elector, Congressperson, or VP ever asked the Supreme Court for guidance on the definition of “natural born Citizen”.

    Not one Elector, Congressperson, or VP ever performed the due dilligence of inspecting a certified initial birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II.

    The Congress and VP inspected certificates sent under seal from the Secretary of State from each of the 50 states (certificates of the Electoral College vote), but they never inspected a birth certificate sent under seal from the State of Hawaii.

    It’s inexcusable, and all I’ve heard are excuses.

  38. Scientist says:

    “I have consistently called for the State of Hawaii to send a certified initial birth certificate, under seal, directly to the members of the United States Congress.”

    With all due respect, who the hell are you? The members of Congress were satisfied and none objected at the time set forth under law for objections. They are the Constitutionally delegated parties in this matter. If you are unhappy with your representative, run against him ir her. By the way the COLB, together with Obama’s Illinois drivers license (not his written driving test or the report on his road test) is absolutely sufficient for an I-9.

    This may come as a surprise to you, but in this society laws are enforced by the authorities not individual citizens. If I see Mr Pill speeding down my street at 90 mph obviously drunk, I am not authorized to put flashers on my car and pull him over and ask for his license (or his written driving test or the report on his road test). I have to call the cops.

    The plain truth is that Obama followed the exact same procedure as every one of the Presidents in modern times. He conformed to every letter of the law and you don’t have to take my word for it, but recall that the Chief Justice swore him in. And you are a fool if you think Roberts would swear in someone he didn’t think was legally qualified.

    You don’t have to like Obama or vote for him, but under the law he is a 100% legitimate POTUS. And if you don’t believe it, you can try the following experiment: break a federal law and raise Presidential legitimacy as your defense. Bring a toothbrush with you, because you will go directly to jail, no passing Go, no $200.

  39. Erica says:

    This link (and excerpts) will be of interest to those attempting to obtain a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Apparently, Hawaii’s open records laws state that if any information within a confidential document is released to the public, they waive the right to a claim of confidentiality for the rest of the records. In July 2009 Hawaii’s Dept. of Health sent out a press release declaring unequivocally that Obama is a natural-born citizen. According to their own laws, they should not have made that public statement. As a result, they are hoisted by their own petard. By their own laws, they have compromised Obama’s confidentiality privileges. The public now has the right to ask how they came by that declarative statement. Any and all correspondence should be part of the public record.

    EXCERPT:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/hawaii-attorney-general-invokes-attorney-client-privilege-concerning-doh-natural-born-citizen-press-release-of-july-27-2009/

    Note that the OIP underlined “consents” in the passage above. This is important because the July 27, 2009 press release – wherein DoH Director Fukino stated that President Obama “was born in Hawaii” and that he is a “natural-born American citizen” – was reviewed and approved by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office. ( DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo previously revealed such reliance to researcher Justin Riggs.)

    As stated above, whether an attorney general opinion is formal or informal is a question of law. The Attorney General is governed by law. If the letter is formal under 28-3 then the letter must be disclosed to the public. If the letter is informal under 28-4, then the letter must also be made available to the public when the client/agency voluntarily discloses the conclusions of the advice rendered by counsel.

    On July 27, 2009 the DoH disclosed the conclusions of the Attorney General’s opinion. The DoH cannot make secret law. The controlling statutes, case law and OIP opinion letters make it quite clear that the Attorney General opinion rendered to the head of the DoH pertaining to her infamous July 27, 2009 press release must be made available to the public.

    I am currently drafting an appeal to the OIP as well as the judiciary. According to the UIPA statute at 92F-15(f), judicial review will be expedited.

    Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

  40. Erica says:

    Wikipedia: FOIA

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29

    On January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13489 that encourages openness, transparency and accountability in government records.

  41. Scientist says:

    “1) I don’t “worship” anyone accept the LORD Jesus Christ.”

    You and Erica are on your knees to Donofrio so much, you should get kneepads. Everything you post comes from his site to yours unaltered (see directly above).

    “That process was not followed correctly. Name a single Elector or Congressperson who personally inspected a “prima facie” document sent to them directly by the States of Hawaii.”

    Where in the law does it say they are supposed to do that? Show me.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html

    “Lastly, the process was not followed correctly when Vice-President Dick Cheney did not ask for objections.’

    No. In 2004 there was an objection to the Ohio votes for Bush, which was made when Ohio was called.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/index.html

    If there was an objection they could have made it when the first Obama state (California) was called. Again this is straight from Donofrio and is wrong. Keep going though, he’s enjoying it.

    “Not one Elector, Congressperson, or VP ever asked the Supreme Court for guidance on the definition of “natural born Citizen”.”

    How do you know they didn’t? Anyway, the court does not give opinions, they decide cases. Besides, as I have noted, Roberts swore Obama in. I take that as suggesting he and the others were satisfied.

    “Not one Elector, Congressperson, or VP ever performed the due dilligence of inspecting a certified initial birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II.”

    Nor did they for Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc. What you’re suggesting is that when Joe shows a birth certificate, we smile and accept it, but when Jose shows the same one, we give him the 3rd degree. Sorry, there is one law and procedure for all. If you want to make new ones, that’s one thing, but you can’t apply them ex post facto, nor violate equal protection.

    You and your buddies are just sore losers. Too bad.

  42. Erica says:

    With reference to the Indiana state ruling about NBC, the thing to remember is that this is not “the end of the story” because the ruling only applies in Indiana. If the Plaintiffs don’t give up, it will likely be appealed to a federal court.

    Furthermore, having multiple lower courts disagree on what the definition of a natural born citizen is will ultimately cause the U.S. Supreme Court to take the matter under consideration. They are not, and never should have been, the court of first resort; they are the court of last resort. Only a federal court, i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court can make definitive law on this issue.

    So, regardless of all the arguments made on this blog to discourage people from pursuing this constitutional issue, hope for justice remains eternal.

  43. Scientist,
    You said:

    The Constitution rests the ultimate jurisdiction to determine Presidential eligibility with the Electoral College and Congress and that process is over.

    and:

    By the way the COLB, together with Obama’s Illinois drivers license (not his written driving test or the report on his road test) is absolutely sufficient for an I-9.

    The fact remains that out of 1,075 people involved in the election, certification, and swearing-in of Barack Hussein Obama II, (538 Electoral College Electors, 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, 1 Vice-President, and 1 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), not a single one of them inspected a hard copy Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II.

    This was the second time that the birth country was in question for a U.S. Presidential candidate born after the adoption of the Constitution. The first time, in the case of Chester A. Arthur, that question was appropriately addressed (even though the citizenship of his father was not). The second time, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama II, those same questions should have been appropriately addressed by at least one out of over a thousand people charged with supporting and defending the Constitution, including the following:

    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.

    All 1,075 of them, representing all three branches of our federal government, had sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but failed to do so. Not a one of them did their due diligence to ensure that “a President shall have qualified”.

  44. Erica said:

    So, regardless of all the arguments made on this blog to discourage people from pursuing this constitutional issue, hope for justice remains eternal.

    Amen!

    The only reason they come here is to try to get us to shut up and quit. I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll say it again:

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

  45. Scientist,

    Since you are so fixated on what Leo Donofrio has to say, why don’t you read his latest post yourself?

  46. Scientist says:

    “This was the first time that the birth country, of a U.S. Presidential candidate born after the adoption of the Constitution, was even in question.”

    Gee, I could have sworn you mentioned Chester Arthur a little while ago.

    The Constitution contains more than just “natural born citizen” Equal protection under law means that if there is a legal procedure, you can’t decide to do things differently because someone has darker skin or a funny-sounding name. In the name of the Constitution, you propose to violate the Constitution.

    The law is clear. Obama is the President. Suck it up…

    As for Erica, the more cases that go to court, and are rejected, the more precedent is established. Smart people would realize that and think about whether it is wise to proceed. But no one ever accused you guys of being smart.

  47. Scientist says:

    “Since you are so fixated on what Leo Donofrio has to say, why don’t you read his latest post yourself?”

    Well I went there and guess what it says at the top of his page…

    “Indian Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue”

    Leo Donofrio has an axe to grind and the law, legal scholars and judges don’t agree with him. Natural born citiizen = citizen at birth. However many other citizenships you might be eligible for are irrelevant, because the laws of other countries don’t take precedence over US law.

    Enjoy the next 3 years and 2 months (or 7 years and 2 months) of the Obama Presidency.

  48. Scientist,

    It is fine for you to attack the argument. It is not fine for you to continually attack the person making the argument. Continued ad hominem attacks will get you banned.

  49. Scientist,

    The Constitution contains more than just “natural born citizen” Equal protection under law means that if there is a legal procedure, you can’t decide to do things differently because someone has darker skin or a funny-sounding name. In the name of the Constitution, you propose to violate the Constitution.

    Racist and wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin or his name, which you imply is “funny-sounding”. Not all people who are born U.S. Citizens are born “natural born citizens” of the United States.

    Leo addresses this issue well, and it’s not an issue of “equal protection”. It’s an issue of law and whether U.S. citizenship was obtained by statue, the 14th Amendment, or Natural Law (hence the name “Natural born citizen”). For you to suggest that this is an “equal protection” issue because “someone has darker skin” brings race into the issue when it doesn’t belong. You are the one being racist, not me. But it is par for the course for Obama supporters to bring race up when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    By the way, I believe that we are all part of One Human Race.

  50. Jonah says:

    The only reason they come here is to try to get us to shut up and quit.

    Y’know, Scientist, he does sort of have a point here. It took me a while to realize, but what exactly is the use in debating Birthers? Aside from equine necro-brutality, what’s the harm in letting them continue with this quest?

    (Also, never call anyone dumb around here. “Your argument is dumb” is fine, but “you aren’t smart” is an ad hominem. Also, never accuse anyone of having a martyr complex, because apparently that constitutes a death threat.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s