A Response to Michelle Malkin

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.”

But FactCheck.org made an error in that statement… an error that Leo Donofrio found and forced the mighty FactCheck.org to admit

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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to A Response to Michelle Malkin

  1. Jax says:

    I enjoy the fact that you cite comments on blogs as verifiable fact: “Multiple commenters have said that their own birth was reported in newspapers in places other than where they were born.” WOW. Congratulations? Care to cite specific incidences where we could, I don’t know, track these things down and verify them?

    And Lucas Smith, really? You want to lead with him? A convicted felon who once tried to sell his own kidney to a dying man?

  2. Math says:

    I knew this was eating at you! I am just amazed that it took you so long to respond. Of course, most of the arguments you use happened after she wrote that post.

    This is even more irrelevant than what you usually post.

  3. Ryan says:

    When crazy right wingers think YOU are a crazy right winger, you need a good long look in the mirror.

  4. Math,
    Of course it’s relevant that most of the arguments I use happened after she wrote that post. That is why she needs to take a fresh look at the evidence and question why she has been trusting two sources who have shown themselves untrustworthy:

    FactCheck.org (which made errors in Obama’s name, the date of maturity on his admitted Kenyan citizenship, and incorrectly claiming that Leo Donofrio is a “former” lawyer), and

    Dr. Fukino, who has been shown to be breaking the law.

    I wrote this post and then asked Michelle to take an honest look it.

    Of course, the trolls come out to smear me rather than address the legal issues and a cover-up that could be orders of magnitude bigger than Watergate (not to mention more important to our national security).

  5. yo says:

    The trolls have no evidence that obama was born in Hawaii. Since you can be born elsewhere and get a Hawaiin birth certificate, the colb is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. In this case, the ONLY thing that proves he was born there is vital records. Period. I really don’t have any idea whether Obama’s trolls that post comments have the intelligence to realize this fact or they just like behaving as a$$e$.

    As far as the rightist bloggers like Malkin, and it surely seems that most are in her camp on this, well, I forgive them, but I don’t spend any time at their blogs or listening to them anymore. And after Leo gets the info, I still don’t plan on spending any time at their blogs.

    The truth is we don’t know where he was born. I think he was probably born in Hawaii, but so what, to be president, you have to prove it, and he hasn’t. It seems fairly obvious, though, that even if he was born in Hawaii, there has been amendments to his bc, and I speculate that those will be very embarrassing to Obama, and possibly cause him legal difficulties, too. Like if he had name changes. He did swear on entrance to various state bars that he had never used another name, right?

  6. yo,

    Thank you for your comment.

    As I discussed in my NBC = 1,2,3 post,

    NBC (Natural Born Citizen) =

    1 – Born in the U.S.
    2 – Father was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth
    3 – Mother was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth

    There are some who question #2 and #3, but there is no one who questions #1. There are some who try to say that John McCain was born on U.S. soil, because they believe he was born on a U.S. military base. But he wasn’t. He was born in Colón Hospital in the city of Colón Panama. John McCain: Citizen of Panama At Birth

    Before we can adequately address the questions about #2 and #3, we must first clear up any doubts about #1. Let’s prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii So we Can Move Onto His British Birth.

    It appears that ammendments have been made to Obama’s birth certificate, and since authentic COLBs reflect the fact that ammendments have been made, that would indicate that the COLB which the Obama campaign put forward as authentic is, in fact, a forgery.

    And yo, to yoru question:

    He did swear on entrance to various state bars that he had never used another name, right?

    I believe the answer is “yes”.

  7. Harry H says:

    Red Pill, your post is masterfully done and makes your detractors look like naughty children by comparison. Logic is above their pay grade.

    I’m glad you point out that the purported Obama COLB was first made public NOT by Obama but by a site partial to Obama. It was then picked up and pushed hard by the Annenberg Foundation’s propaganda arm deceptively styled FactCheck.

    Gullible congresspersons and others took FactCheck’s word as gospel, not knowing that Obama had a long association with the Annenberg Foundation, since he doled out large sums of their money over many years as Chairman of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge. Obama and FactCheck are like family, man. Yet U.S. senators cite FactCheck as an independent researcher. Ugh.

    As for Obama/Ayers collaboration on “Dreams from My Father,” a book which some cite as evidence of Barack’s citizenship status, from what I can tell, Christopher Andersen’s new book on the Obamas and Jack Cashill’s longstanding research both indicate that without Ayers the book would not have happened. I consider the unrepentant communist terrorist and Obama mentor William Ayers to be Obama’s ghostwriter.

  8. Ryan says:

    Since you can be born elsewhere and get a Hawaiin birth certificate

    One that says birthplace: Honolulu? Hawaii, despite what Mr. Pill thinks, has confirmed the validity of the birth certificate. If you are of the mind that the state officials are lying on his behalf, what in the world would make you believe them if they showed you an original document?

  9. Aaron says:

    While Mr Red makes some good points about Obama’s citizenship status, I think Malkin’s blog had a different and unspoken point to it.

    Rather than focus on the long shot of getting Osama ousted based on the NBC rules, I think we should focus on taking him, his thugs, and the moron left to task on the actual issues that face us.

    All of us know that universal nightmare is just that, and we need to keep spreading the word about it as wide as we can. Keep reporting the realities of Canada’s universal nightmare, Britain’s, Germany’s, and everywhere else that has bore the atrocities which are a natural part universal healthcare systems.

    All of us know what a load of garbage the crap and tax nonsense is, but we won’t defeat it by focusing our efforts on Obama’s citizenship status. We can do a better job fighting it by busting the man-made global warming myth and showing everyone just how dumb Al Gore and the rest of his enviro-morons are. Failed computer model predictions and dropping temperatures, anyone? Even elementary students know that plants breathe CO2.

    My point is that our efforts are better spent elsewhere than on a single long shot which, in the name of, “that’s not an appropriate question to raise about an elected president”, will likey be tied up in court until potentially long after he is gone.

    Out arguing the left is much easier when you see what they put forth in text and realize that they really have little substance. Most of their posts are straw-man arguments, logical fallacies, and ad hominem attacks. They really are bankrupt when it comes to substance.

  10. Math says:

    Aaron: you know for a guy so obsessed with fallacies, you’re pretty eager to use them. “Universal nightmare”? “Crap and tax”? “Enviro-moron”? How old are you, 10? What is it with wingnuts and name calling?

  11. Ryan says:

    Aaron, I actually agree with you on that. You want to attack Obama on issues? Go right ahead – I’ll actually be right there with you. Perhaps on different issues, but I’ll support your right to speak up, and I’ll listen to your point of view. This eligibility garbage is just that.

    As for Canada’s health care, most people in the US would trade your health care system for ours in an instant. Nobody I know has ever had a problem getting good health care promptly, and has never had to pay a dime for it. The attack on Canadian and British health care is fear mongering. It’s not perfect, but it is fair, covers everyone, and is cheaper to run than yours.

  12. Harry H says:

    When Ryan refers to “This eligibility garbage,” he reveals a callous contempt for lawful governance, and he illustrates perfectly why patriotic Americans don’t want foreigners like Obama, or Ryan, in charge of our country.

  13. Ryan says:

    patriotic Americans don’t want foreigners like Obama, or Ryan, in charge of our country.

    It’s okay Harry. I’m white, so there wouldn’t be much fuss.

    On a serious note, give me one single bit of evidence that Obama was born ANYWHERE other than Hawaii. Not you Mr. Pill, I’d like to hear what Harry has to say on this issue.

  14. Aaron says:

    Math, why are you still harboring resentment over my calling you out on fallacies you have committed? As for the names I used, they simply provide a more accurate description of what those subjects really are.

    If it rubs you the wrong way, you had best just get a lot of ointment, I’m not going to stop exposing your cheap, typical liberal tactics until you stop using them.

  15. Aaron says:

    Ryan, even subtle attempts to play the race card, such as the one you did above, are just as low, shrill and pathetic as if Al Sharpton tried to play it again. Further, you have again deliberately ignored the fact that Mr Red has fully acknowledged Obama’s birth in Hawaii. That attempt to derail by focusing on an irrelevant part of Red’s posted argument is almost as low as a race card.

  16. Ryan says:

    Mr Red has fully acknowledged Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    He most certainly has not. He has stated time and time again that the the government in Hawaii is complicit in a conspiracy to hide the real information on Obama’s birth certificate, specifically the place of birth. His most recent post (THE ONE WE”RE COMMENTING ON) he states multiple times that Obama has not proven he was born in the US. He dismisses the birth certificate that was released, and repeatedly mentions that the only birth certificate that comes with a “sworn affidavit” is the one from Kenya – the one that has been shown to be a ridiculous forgery.

    The only thing left here is whether or not he is a “natural born citizen”. Obama has always acknowledged his British citizenship at birth. This is not disputed by him, or anyone. It has not resulted in anyone of any influence, in either party, disputing his eligibility.

    Argue Obama’s policies until you are blue in the face, but when THIS MUCH evidence is up against you, and you have NONE on your side with respect to Obama’s eligibility, can you really blame people for assuming there is a racial element to this movement? I’d say there probably isn’t a racial element to the motivations of the people here, but there is a religious element – that much has been admitted.

  17. Math says:

    Aaron: what blog are you reading? Red has fully admitted Obama’s birth in Hawaii? Link please. He has a plan B (dual citizenship) just in case it turns out Obama was born in Hawaii, but he has never admitted it.

    And by the way name calling does not provide a more accurate description, it’s an ad hominem.

  18. Aaron says:

    Ah, my mistake. You are correct that he did not acknowledge Obama’s Hawaiian birth. It was a misinterpretation on my part based on the fact that Mr Red brought up the point about Obama’s British citizenship status at birth and argued the point that even if born in HI, that alone is insufficient to satisfy the NBC requirement as stated by Donofrio.

    As for your claims to my ad hominem, only one of the terms I used was an ad hominem, but it is still very accurate. The other two were direct attacks on their respective subjects…and were both very accurate. As for you having a problem with me throwing ad hominems, how do you like seeing your own tactics turned on you?

  19. Frin says:

    Here’s what Justice Scalia has to say on what defines Natural Born Citizenship.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument – Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS

    Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

    They did not want that.

    They wanted natural born Americans.

    [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

    Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

    [Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

    Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

    I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

    I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

    It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

    Hmmm… so Scalia things that NBC=jus soli. How do you argue against that Mr Pill?

  20. Math says:

    Frin: Scalia is a leftist moonbat! Isn’t it obvious? ;-)

  21. Math says:

    [blockquote]As for your claims to my ad hominem, only one of the terms I used was an ad hominem, but it is still very accurate. The other two were direct attacks on their respective subjects…and were both very accurate.[/blockquote]

    The other two may not have been ad hominem, but they were certainly appeal to ridicule.

    [blockquote]As for you having a problem with me throwing ad hominems, how do you like seeing your own tactics turned on you?[/blockquote]

    And that’s an ad hominem tu quoque.

    As you can see it’s quite easy to dodge the argument and point out fallacies. It seems both sides are guilty of it. ;-)

  22. Leo C. Donofrio says:

    ATTENTION…

    I want as much focus on this blog as possible when I publish Part 3 of the TerriK Investigation Report, subtitled:

    STATE OF HAWAII LAW DEMANDS THAT VITAL RECORDS INFORMATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ALONG WITH ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO DoH DIRECTOR FUKINO’S JULY 27, 2009 PRESS RELEASE.

    Not only has Obama waived privacy interests, the state waived them as well. More important is the fact that state law governs that no privacy interest exception applies when the information requested is required to be released under the UIPA at 92F-12.

    The only question is whether Hawaii will obey its own laws.

    I will publish this report late tonight or early tomorrow morning.

    This comment was issued by Leo C. Donofrio on September 27, 2009 at 12:41PM ET

    Please repost far and wide.

  23. Both jus soli (ground) and jus sanguinis (blood) are required.

    Obama has already admitted that he fails jus sanguinis.
    That is enough to disqualify him.

    Yet, even on top of that, he has yet to prove jus soli.
    He could be ineligible by BOTH jus soli AND jus sanguinis.

  24. Consider 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.

  25. “More than 50 schools in Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo, have linked to British partners as part of the scheme.”

  26. Ryan says:

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

    Yes there is. A citizen is any person with US citizenship. One can obtain this type of citizenship at any age. A natural born citizen is a person who obtained citizenship by being born on US soil, and has since retained that citizenship. That’s the difference. This is extremely clear to all reputable constitutional experts, and apparently, all supreme court judges as well.

    You cannot say a person is not a natural born citizen because another nation gives him citizenship as well. What if Cuba starts granting citizenship to anyone born on US soil. Technically all babies born in the US would be legal, bonafide, Cuban citizens on birth. Do they then owe allegiance to Cuba? Countries can grant citizenship to whomever they wish – that should not effect any American’s ability to rise to a position of power.

    Another point that I just thought of. The constitutional requirements on say that a president, while he or she is required to have been born on US soil, need only have resided in the US for 14 years. This means that a person of 64 years old, could live in another country for 50 years after birth, and still be eligible to be president. Is that not a case where allegiance could be in question? If they allow this case, why would they care if one parent held the citizenship of another country?

  27. Ryan says:

    “More than 50 schools in Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo, have linked to British partners as part of the scheme.”

    Wow, schools in Kenya are proud of a man whose family is from Kenya! How scandalous!!! Did you read the article? It said that the kids are proud of the United States for having peaceful elections, and they hope to have them too some day.

    You make yourself look sillier with every post.

  28. Ryan,

    You comment from Canada and fancy yourself more of an expert on U.S. “natural born Citizenship” than the United States Supreme Court and attorneys who have argured cases in front of said court.

    You also willfully ignore evidence from the U.K. that Obama himself was born about 30 miles from Kisumu, Kenya.

    You make yourself look sillier with every comment.

  29. Ryan says:

    Knowledge has no boundaries Mr. Pill. I have access to the same resources as you, and incidentally, the US supreme court, and pretty much everyone else agrees with me on this case. No have nothing on your side but pure speculation, and judges are not interested in that.

    You also willfully ignore evidence from the U.K. that Obama himself was born about 30 miles from Kisumu, Kenya.

    What evidence? The forged birth certificate?

  30. Ryan,

    1) Re-read the comments above. You’re either completely missing, or willfully ignoring, mention of Obama’s Kenyan birth, from UK sources.

    2) Regarding the cover-up at the Hawaiian Department of Health:

    it’s going to take more than the DoH to stop the information coming out. My research is showing this is a slam dunk. You would need the OIP to reverse about 10 Opinion Letters and then you’d need the Hawaii Supreme Court to reverse itself. I am not fooling around here.

  31. Ryan,

    The native born child of an alien parent is a US citizen, but is not a natural born citizen like the child of a citizen. Go read the case of Wong Kim Ark and look for Gray’s quote of Mr. Binney.

    The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen

    Obama, if proven to have been born in the country, is nevertheless the child of an alien. Even if born in the country, he would be “as much a citizen (note: as much a “citizen”, not as much a “natural born citizen”) as the natural born child of a citizen”. Got that? He’d be as much a citizen as the natural born citizen. Not the same as.

  32. Ryan says:

    The very quote you provide is the absolute proof of your error

    The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen

    “AS MUCH A CITIZEN” is the key phrase here. That means that a child of an alien is NO LESS A CITIZEN that a child of an American, if both are born on US soil. Both are natural born, and this quote does not prove otherwise. The use of “natural born” in one of the two cases does not necessarily imply that the other was not natural born as well. There is no case law anywhere that defines natural born citizens as anything more or less than a person born on US soil, or born to parents abroad on government business.

    Even in England, a child born in the country to alien parents is a “natural born subject” and that has been the case for a few hundred years.

  33. “AS MUCH A CITIZEN” is the key phrase here. That means that a child of an alien is NO LESS A CITIZEN that a child of an American, if both are born on US soil.

    True.

    Both are natural born, and this quote does not prove otherwise.

    False.

    “A is as much an X as B” does not mean “A = B”.

    You would love for the Wong Kim Ark decision to read:
    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a natural born citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.”

    But that’s not what it says.

    As much as you wish it did, the Wong Kim Ark decision does not say that the child of an alien, if born in the country, is a natural born citizen. It says they are a citizen, as much a citizen as the natural born citizen.

    Article II Section 1 says that you must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold the office of President. The only exception to that rule is for those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution). This exception was necessary because when the Constitution was written in 1787, the oldest natural born citizens were 11 years old. It would be another 24 years before any natural born citizens would meet the minimum age requirement for President. So, the founders put in a grandfather clause that would, if you will, die a natural death.

    Since Obama was born after the Constitution was adopted, he must meet the more stringent requirement of “natural born citizen”, not merely “citizen”.

    Obama is the child of an alien. The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote to George Washington (then President of the Constitutional Convention), warning him to keep such people away from the office of Commander in Chief.

    IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he, as the child of an alien, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, but he never was, and never will be, a natural born citizen.

    A “natural born citizen” is a citizen by both “jus soli” and “jus sanguinus”.

    Obama is not a “natural born citizen” for at least one, but possibly even two distinct reasons:

    1) He was born a foreigner (born a subject of a foreign nation), due to blood (his father), regardless of the soil (location) where he was born. He undeniably fails “jus sanguinus”.

    2) He may not have even been born on U.S. soil. He has yet to produce an original long-form birth certificate, and Hawaiian officials are denying the law to conceal “index records” that they are required by law to release. These index records show evidence that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended. If he was born in Kenya, with a grandparent claiming he was born in Hawaii, then he would also fail “jus soli”.
    Who claims Obama is a “Son of This Soil”?
    The answer might surprise you.

  34. aaron says:

    Math, appeal to ridicule is perfectly valid for use when the subject deserves nothing more than ridicule.

  35. I repeat for emphasis…

    Barack Hussein Obama II undeniably fails “jus sanguinus”.

    Governmental evidence in the public domain highly suggests that he fails “jus soli” as well…

    “Son of This Soil”

  36. Math says:

    Math, appeal to ridicule is perfectly valid for use when the subject deserves nothing more than ridicule.

    Not when you’re trying to make the argument that they deserve such ridicule.

  37. Math says:

    Son of this soil

    You take that phrase so literally you must wonder how the soil itself could have given birth to a son.

    It’s painfully obvious they’re talking about his heritage, not his place of birth. You can twist a phrase to the fifth or sixth degree if it can further your cause, why be stubbornly stuck on the first degree on this one?

  38. Math,

    I guess you think this quote is “about his heritage”, too:

    “More than 50 schools in Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo, have linked to British partners as part of the scheme.”

    Yup. The same grandmother who said she was present at his birth. I’ve seen people argue that she (after her handlers said “in America!”) corrected the interviewer and said he was born in America, not Kenya as she initially indicated. But I’ve never seen anyone argue about the fact that she said yes, she was present at his birth.

    She was present at his birth. In Kenya.

    Does anyone really believe that this grandmother flew to Hawaii?

    Why is it that the only birth certificate with a doctor’s signature is from Kenya?

    Why is it that the only birth certificate (versus certification) that has been shown is from Kenya?

    Why is it that the only birth document for which anyone has been willing to swear an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, is from Kenya?

    Why is that officials at the Hawaiian Department of Health are breaking the law in order to hide details about Obama’s records?

  39. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill, what is wrong with you? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Are you lonely? Is this the only thing that makes you feel like you belong to something?

    Are you seriously bringing up a group of school kids pride in the ethnicity of a US president as evidence of birth?

    A group of kids in an African school is more admissible in court than the official statement of the government who holds jurisdiction in this matter.

    You sir, need serious help.

  40. Sallyven says:

    Ryan, the “group of school kids” did not write the article, rather, the article was written about the kids, and the opening paragraph of it referred explicitly to Obama’s birth in a nearby Kenyan village.

    Since Mr. Obama has not been forthcoming in providing verified details of his birth, it is open to speculation by anyone as to where he was actually born. For you to imply that “Mr. Pill” is now relying on Kenyan schoolchildren, is a classic feint, since you cannot seem to offer a rational response to very reasoned arguments.

  41. Freedom101 says:

    If you’re a soldier, do you want a commander in chief that owes allegiance to another nation; a nation that you may one day go to war with? Should the responsiblity of the security for your country fall on the shoulders of someone who may be influenced by other nations due to the circumstance of their birth? When your country negotiates with other nations, do you want anything less than a head of state that has your nations best interests in mind?

    That answer is simple if you’re a left wing, liberal, global citizen: it doesn’t matter.

  42. Sallyven and Freedom101,

    I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

  43. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Scalia says NBC = jus soli.

    You say jus soli and jus sanguinis. Are you making this up as you go along?

    Who has more credibility in this debate – a Supreme Court justice, or you? I know which one I chose. (Note its not the person that believes in clearly debunked fake Kenyan birth certificates obtained by convicted criminals).

  44. Ryan says:

    Why is one article obviously making a mistake about a birthplace have any weight? It probably was meant to say Obama’s father and you all know that.

    Obama has provided all the required proof of his birth. You have been given confirmation by the governing official that the documents are accurate. If you’re willing to believe that the state of Hawaii is covering up something, why would they not just issue a birth certificate for Obama saying whatever he wants it to say? It’s in their capacity, if you believe they’ve already committed a crime in a matter of national security, which would be treason, and punishable by death I believe.

    Freedom101, of course you want a president with a single allegiance. There is no indication that Obama owes allegiance to any other nation. Did you have a problem with Bush, given that his family owes allegiance to the SAudis due to massive investments and business dealings?

  45. Frin Says:

    Scalia says NBC = jus soli.

    Link please. You are distorting the truth.

  46. Ryan Says:

    Why is one article obviously making a mistake about a birthplace have any weight?

    It’s one piece of evidence among many. If Obama had been born in Hawaii, and had a long form birth certificate to prove it, it would have been made public by now. Instead, all that has been produced is obfuscation.

    It probably was meant to say Obama’s father and you all know that.

    I had a hunch you would say that, and am surprised it took you so long to say it. But that hypothesis is ludicrous, because of the reference to the still-living grandmother. That confirms that they are talking about the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II.

    Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo

    Are you seriously suggesting that the grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., in other words the great-grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama II and great-great-grandmother of Malia and Sasha, is still living?

    That’s really a pretty silly position to take, Ryan.

  47. Ryan Says:

    Obama has provided all the required proof of his birth. You have been given confirmation by the governing official that the documents are accurate. If you’re willing to believe that the state of Hawaii is covering up something, why would they not just issue a birth certificate for Obama saying whatever he wants it to say? It’s in their capacity, if you believe they’ve already committed a crime in a matter of national security, which would be treason, and punishable by death I believe.

    TerriK INVESTIGATION: Foreshadowing

    TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

    Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places Her Thumb Directly In The Giant’s Eye.

    TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama.

    TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

  48. Ryan Says:

    There is no indication that Obama owes allegiance to any other nation. Did you have a problem with Bush, given that his family owes allegiance to the SAudis due to massive investments and business dealings?

    1) Obama did a full bow, from the waist, to the Saudi King. See the first picture here.

    2) Obama has already admitted that he was born a British subject. As such, he owed allegiance at birth to another nation.

    3) If I wanted to be snarky, I could take your quote and say, “There is no indication that Obama owes allegiance to this nation.”

    4) What exactly was Obama’s intent with this:

    Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House

  49. Ryan says:

    Wow, you’re right. He was born in Kenya.

    You don’t think it’s a possibility that a reporter screwed up? Which do you think is more likely – that one reporter was wrong, or that all the rest were wrong?

    You’ve never answered my questions that I’ve asked you for about a year. Why would the government of Hawaii and its officials lie in the public about the existence of a document that, if they are willing to lie, should be willing to forge? It would not even be a forgery – they could produce any form you want, and it would be as legitimate as any because it came from the right office.

    Why would they do this Mr. Pill? If they are lying, and willing to commit federal crimes, why not just produce a certificate? They could make it on the spot, and there would never have been a question about it. I’ll tell you why. It’s because there’s nothing they could say or do that would convince the birthers of anything other than what is already in their heads.

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