Video: America’s most famous Birther appears on Colbert for ritual mockery

posted at 4:50 pm on July 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

She’s only momentarily the most famous. I hate to be the one to break the news to HA’s Birther contingent, but as of this morning there’s a new member of the movement with a higher profile than hers. I look forward to his many, many, many “provocative” blog posts on the subject in the decades to come.

Honestly, of all the reasons to believe Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, this one strikes me as nearly bulletproof.


The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Womb Raiders – Orly Taitz
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Tasers


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The first, being natural-born citizens. In other words, there is no doubt. The doubt is in regards to a child who it cannot be proven the citizenship of his parents. Exactly where we are right now with Obama and his COLB. If it were revealed on his long form that one of his parents were not a U.S. citizen when O was born, he would no longer be an ‘orphan’ case, which the court said it would not be necessary to solve.

But the natural born status and definition is spelled out perfectly, as a separate class (knowing the nationality of the parents) and different from a class of people born in the U.S. with no knowledge of both parents nationality.

trace_9r on July 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Nonsense.

It is clear that the court was referring to two classes of people; one, whose both parents are citizens, and one where this is not the case.

Now, you are claiming, with a straight face by all indications, that his BC will solve the problem of knowing whether one of his parents wasn’t a US citizen, when in fact Barack Obama published a book and spent a year and a half criss-crossing the country telling people he was the son of a non-citizen.

Is that your assertion? Seriously?

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM

runner on July 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM

And I would recommend that you read what you post.

Nothing in that quote mentions “natural born” citizens, nor does it contradict Grey in Wong Kim Ark.

So, is there language that does contradict Grey?

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:23 PM

No, what your quote said was that only SOME legal authorities would pass the “citizen” test. That seems like it’s less than half of the authorities, or else he would have said “most”. And natural-born citizenship is an even higher standard than just plain citizenship.

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Sorry. Should have been “only SOME legal authorities would say Obama passes the ‘citizen’ test.”

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:34 PM

So, is there language that does contradict Grey?

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:23 PM

It’s irrelevant. SCOTUS can’t rule on an issue that isn’t brought before them. The fact that someone mentioned it in an opinion doesn’t make it law. The issue of being natural-born wasn’t argued. The Kim case was about whether he was a citizen and nothing else. What’s next? Sotomayor works her wise Latina comment into an opinion and suddenly wise Latinas are Constitutionally first in line for all open seats on the bench? Ridiculous.

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:48 PM

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:31 PM

I think you may be reading too much into the CJ’s assertion of quantitative analysis of the judicial/legal establishment. I doubt he polled all judges and determined that some, but less than 50%+1 held the view that children of non-citizens were in fact, “natural born citizens”.

But all that is beyond the point. The operative point of that paragraph is that there is doubt as to that question, and that the Court wasn’t going to settle that point, because it was unnecessary for the adjudication of that case. They in fact admitted it was an open question they were not going to solve.

And I still have yet to see anything carrying the force of law that has solved that question.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Nothing in that quote mentions “natural born” citizens, nor does it contradict Grey in Wong Kim Ark.

Even if not specifically mentioned, the definition of natural born citizen was not in doubt, or redefined by any of the cases. Common law left them no doubt it seems.

runner on July 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 9:48 PM

The fact that someone mentioned it in an opinion doesn’t make it law.

You are right to the extent that Grey’s quoting of Swayne was dicta. As such, it is not black-letter law. However, when reading SCOTUS cases, one can read dicta for insight into how the Court looks at matters they have not ruled directly on.

In all the cases we have discussed here (Wong, Elg, Minor), none of them have been directly on point with regards to Artcle II requirements, so by your own assertion (unless you can point to a chapter in the US Code), there is no law on the matter. But Grey’s quote of Swayne, and his extended discussion of British/American common law is by far the most definitive discussion of the matters at hand, and they point to what I originally stated, that the preponderance of evidence is on Obama’s side.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Even if not specifically mentioned, the definition of natural born citizen was not in doubt, or redefined by any of the cases. Common law left them no doubt it seems.

runner on July 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Swayne, and Grey, apparently disagreed with you.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Wouldn’t it seem high time for the SCOTUS to take a case and decide this?

Do you really buy the idea that the issue was brought before them and they 5 or 6 times said it was too insignificant an issue for them to bother with?

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Swayne, and Grey, apparently disagreed with you.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM

what natural born citizen is or what the meaning of is is ?

the preponderance of evidence is on Obama’s side.

that remains to be seen

runner on July 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM

there is no law on the matter.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:56 PM

It’s called the Constitution.

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Once again, I DEMAND TO SEE HIS kenyan BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!

Reaps on July 29, 2009 at 10:11 PM

MadisonConservative on July 29, 2009 at 8:46 PM:
Are you saying that by moral obligation, he should release it, in order to assuage the fears of his citizens? To that I would say, yes, he should.

Now, if you’re saying that he should simply because people on the internet want him to, I’d be inclined to say no.

When I suggested you try the poll for yourself to determine if what I’ve said is correct, I wasn’t suggesting you ask the question of Ugandans, MadCon.

Above you’re utilizing a false dichotomy – thar those who use the internet are not American citizens. If that were so, then you can’t be an American citizen, especially if you are expressing a political viewpoint! And considering probably 90% of America is online, you’d be excluding a whole lotta people.

Just one online petition, by itself, has over 430,000 signatures demanding that Obama produce his longform BC.

You’re welcome to also try the simple, unloaded “poll” in “real life” asking folks you know in just a casual, passing “what do ya think?” manner. I don’t believe that most folks will see a big problem in Obama coughing it up (except for the Dems/leftists).

You’re also forgetting it’s a legal matter, going through the courts in misc. jurisdictions. I assume you are not for Obama refusing a court order. He has already backed down in the case of Major Cook; when a judge decided the case would continue (since Maj. Cook had “standing” – that was the only legal block in other cases – a lack of standing), Maj.Cook’s orders from Obama as CIC were were withdrawn. We’re taling about an Iraq vet with 20+ years of spotless service to his country. (That should qualify him, if anyone, as a citizen!)

I have no interest in bizarre notions that Obama is a foreign Muslim Marxist plant or like conspiracies or fantasies of getting him booted from office. In fact, that would be a national horror to deal with, not a gotcha “political victory” to celebrate.

However, what we are talking about here instead is a simple matter of making his birth records public. It just really should not be a problem. That he’s spending a lot of money in courts across the land to avoid making this info public naturally causes many folks to think there’s “smoke”, if not a fire.

I remember the Nixon days of Watergate – it was a simple, bungled burglary. And there certainly were many people who believed Nixon was innocent of any wrongdoing. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

I’m not saying there is a Watergate-sized instance looming in this case, but rather pointing out that if no one presses for the even the most basic of information, that’s not a good thing.

And now it really is time for my beddy-by.

whatcat on July 29, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Wouldn’t it seem high time for the SCOTUS to take a case and decide this?

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM

First the academic answer:

I think Congress should be the ones to decide such matters. Much as they get to define “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “declare war”, they, as arbiters of federal elections, should define “natural born citizen”. I don’t want the SCOTUS handling political matters.

Now the realpolitical answer:

You’ve got to be high if you think the SCOTUS is going to touch this. Think for a second what might entail.

Let’s say they sided with runner et al, and said in fact that because one of Barack Obama’s parents wasn’t a citizen, he cannot be “eligible to the Office of President”. What next?

Well, the easy answer is to remove him. But the Constitution doesn’t give the SCOTUS that authority. So, who does the task fall to?

Well, obviously Congress. But there’s a lot of problems associated with that one. The only authority Congress has to remove the POTUS from office is via impeachment. So, what’s the problem, you might ask.

First of all, Obama’s party is in charge of congress. They are, in all likelihood, going to tell the SCOTUS to “pound sand, and what are you going to do about it.” At that point, SCOTUS loses face, and SCOTUS doesn’t like to lose face.

Secondly, the only criteria for removal via impeachment is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” OK, treason is out, for a number of reasons. Nobody claims at least yet) that there was any bribery involved in this matter. Which leaves us with the catch-all, high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

But what exactly is Barack Obama’s offense? Is there any assertion that, under this scenario, he was anything other than truthful about his lineage? In what way did he break trust with the people, government or institutions of the United States?

The answer is, he didn’t. In fact, if there was any malfeasance, it lay with the Congress, in as much as they did not do their due diligence when they certified his election. Now, do you really think congress is about to own up to that one?

Of course they’re not. And frankly, they shouldn’t, since, as has been proven and admitted here repeatedly, there was no black-letter law on the matter until this theoretical SCOTUS ruling.

So that leaves the country with a constitutional crisis of heretofore unseen proportions. Now, do you really think the SCOTUS is going to head down that road?

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM

It’s called the Constitution.

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Whooo… I missed that part of the constitution where it says “Ronnie shall be the final arbiter of all things constitutional”.

Thanks for clearing that up.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Do you really buy the idea that the issue was brought before them and they 5 or 6 times said it was too insignificant an issue for them to bother with?

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Incredible though it might be, Ronnie actually put his finger on this.

SCOTUS can’t rule on something that hasn’t been brought in front of it. They would probably tell you that in none of those cases was the matter ripe for adjudication.

The time may now be ripe, but, as I noted above, there is no way SCOTUS is going to take this on. If there was a case there (and I doubt there really is), then the time to challenge him would have been when his name was on the ballot, but before the election. I doubt that any federal court was going to hear it even then, but sure as hell they aren’t going to touch it now.

If there is a course of action ow, it is probably for Congress to introduce legislation defining just what a “natural born citizen” is, and requiring candidates comply with a fixed set of criteria to prove this. If Congress saw fit to require that both parents be citizens in order for a child to be “natural born”, then fine. obama would be disqualified, and it wouldn’t run into any ex post facto issues.

But you and I both know that isn’t going to happen. Hispanics would freak, and move against any member who signed onto such provisions.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Ok, Deniers, 4 questions:

1) IF Obama’s previously released CertificaTION of live birth was in fact THE legal document required to verify his natural born status, then why has it not been submitted as evidence in any of the lawsuits filed against him?

2) Why the reversal of orders in Major Cook’s case, the first person “with standing” per the court system?

3) Does “Natural born citizen” mean having 2 parents who are US citizens?

4) If in fact that is a valid COLB, why the Presidential Executive Order to hide all his documents signed the day after the inauguration?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 5:27 PM

1. None of the Lawsuits made it to Discovery.

2. Cook’s orders weren’t “reversed” this is a bold face lie. He plotted to get in on a Lawsuit with Orly in a while ago. He is a Freeper and made his intentions known on that site. He then volunteered for deployment MONTHS after Obama was president with the sole purpose of refusing to go to make a political statement. He is a reservist and has up to 1 or 2 days before deployment to rescind his volunteerism and that’s automatically granted without question. This was a total con job and the dumb birthers and wingnuts fell for it.

3. As far as I know, no it doesn’t

4. And this is why Birthers are idiots and refuse to read for themselves and pay attention. Executive Order 13489 revokes EO 13233. EO 13233 RESTRICTED ACCESS TO PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS. Obama revoked it, hence line (6).

Magnus on July 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM

And BTW

Executive Order 1348 (Obama) revoked EO 13222(Bush) which restored EO 12667 (Reagan) which gave more transparent access to presidential records, this was revoked by Bush.

Here is some edumication

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/01/obama-bush-i-can-release-your-records-dont-it-sue

Magnus on July 29, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Now, you are claiming, with a straight face by all indications, that his BC will solve the problem of knowing whether one of his parents wasn’t a US citizen…

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM

His BC will confirm the birthplace of his pops. What Obama says yesterday, today or tomorrow has an expiration date, according to Ed himself.

The ‘problem’ as you call it, is proving eligibility for POTUS. Hardly a problem or an inconvenience. It’s a constitutional matter of national security. The reason it’s a ‘problem’ is:

1. People are ignoring the natural-born clause
2. People would rather argue and speculate than settle the argument by releasing the BC

The biggest irony of all these discussions, is that the people that are guffawing day-in and day-out are continuing to claim two things:

A. They’re against Obama and his policies, and
B. By their ignorance and obstinance, they continue to support his illegitimacy

That’s called hypocrisy, stupidity, idiocy, take your pick. Any and all of these are your big problem, not understanding the concept of natural-born and applying it as a requirement to be POTUS.

trace_9r on July 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM

Thanks for clearing that up.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 10:37 PM

No problem. Next time you mean to say that the law has yet to be challenged and definitively interpreted, say that the law has yet to be challenged and definitively interpreted. When you say there’s no law, you sound stupid.

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 11:49 PM

trace_9r on July 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM

His BC will confirm the birthplace of his pops.

OK, we’ve moved from doubting Obama Jr’s birthplace to doubting Obama Sr’s birthplace. What do we think we’ll find, that Obama Sr was born in Moscow?

Jeez.

The reason it’s a ‘problem’ is:

1. People are ignoring the natural-born clause

No, the real problem is there is no definitive authority on just what”natural born” means.

Unless of course you can point to a SCOTUS opinion or section of the uS Code defining it.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Apparently someone needed a sarcasm tag.

But then again, some people are stupid.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM

I understand what you’re saying and it’s probably why they won’t take it up but I don’t think Congress would have the authority to determine what the Founding Fathers meant when they say “natural born citizen”. Seems to me that if you want to add to the Constitution you have to do it through the ratification process.

But the Twentieth Amendment does prescribe what needs to happen if the one who is elected fails to qualify. I don’t have it right in front of me, which is actually a rare event. I think it gives the job of finding a qualified president to Congress but don’t quote me on that. Seems like to get someone with enough electoral votes who was eligible you’d have to have a new election.

But I think Obama knows he’s not eligible, or else he wouldn’t be fighting so hard. If the dual citizenship was all he had to worry about I don’t think he would have brought it up openly OR forged the COLB. I think when he signed the documents saying he was eligible he was committing perjury. If/when that is proven the SCOTUS will still be called in to figure out what the Constitution provides for that situation. If it was just perjury it would be grounds for impeachment. But since the perjury involves the whole eligibility issue it then becomes a Constitutional issue beyond the scope of Congress to deal with.

Strange as it may seem, it could be that the military acting on orders from the SCOTUS to remove a president who is Constitutionally disqualified – just like Honduras – may be the way this would have to be resolved, if Obama didn’t willingly leave the office. The military officers’ oath is to the Constitution. If the SCOTUS ruled that the president must be removed from office the military would have to enforce that if nobody else would.

The people who played “chicken” with the Constitution would do well to think about what happens when people FAIL to exercise due diligence. The idea of a Constitutional crisis to this degree should have scared the politics right out of every elected official who was supposed to check eligibility and out of the media. They’re never going to learn if they keep getting away with this crap.

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Apparently someone needed a sarcasm tag.

But then again, some people are stupid.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM

No problem. /s

OK. Fixed.

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Ronnie, prove to me you are not a moron.

Where in the Constitution does it define who is a “natural born citizen”.

Clown.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM

The Constitution doesn’t define who is a natural born citizen. You’re a moron for asking. Still, the Constitution is the law of the land, even the part that mentions natural born citizens, and interpretation is handled by the courts.

Ronnie on July 30, 2009 at 12:18 AM

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM

I don’t think Congress would have the authority to determine what the Founding Fathers meant when they say “natural born citizen”.

Why not? I think it’s a given that they can determine what are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, and can do so on an ad hoc basis. I would think that what they can do on an ad hoc basis, they certainly can do statutorily.

But the Twentieth Amendment does prescribe what needs to happen if the one who is elected fails to qualify. I don’t have it right in front of me, which is actually a rare event. I think it gives the job of finding a qualified president to Congress but don’t quote me on that. Seems like to get someone with enough electoral votes who was eligible you’d have to have a new election.

My reading of the XXth is that it applies to POTUS-elects who do not qualify at the beginning of a Presidential term. As Congress has already certified Obama as POTUS, it seems a stretch to apply it to a sitting POTUS. It might fly, but you still have the problem of removal. IOW, it is (relatively) easy to not seat a POTUS… removing him is a way dicier situation.

But I think Obama knows he’s not eligible, or else he wouldn’t be fighting so hard.

But he’s really not fighting anything. All he has to do is not authorize Hawaii to make it public. For all the talk of millions of dollars spent on his behalf, I have yet to see an accounting of that.

The rest of your argument seems to assume that he was in fact not born in Hawaii. Countless people and agencies have assured us otherwise, including the GOP governor of Hawaii, and the campaign of his GOP opponent for the Presidency. The evidence is overwhelming that he was, and as such I will reject that out of hand.

If you say he knew that he was not natural born because of his father’s lineage, then I would ask… how? I think we’ve determined that it is a legal uncertainty. So how would Obama make that determination to trigger perjury charges.

As far as the military kicking him out, that is a fantasy. He is their C-in-C, and until Congress determines otherwise, they will recognize him as such, regardless of what the SCOTUS says. Remember, we are a country that has an English tradition, not a Spanish one. The US Constitutionmakes damn plain whose responsibility it is to remove a POTUS, and it ain’t SCOTUS. And I have faith in our officer corps to know that and respect it.

The people who played “chicken” with the Constitution would do well to think about what happens when people FAIL to exercise due diligence. The idea of a Constitutional crisis to this degree should have scared the politics right out of every elected official who was supposed to check eligibility and out of the media.

And yet it didn’t scare them… any of them. Not even the most fire-breathing right-wingers in Congress, some of whom I’m certain you support almost completely, said nothing.

Doesn’t that tell you something?

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM

The Constitution doesn’t define who is a natural born citizen. You’re a moron for asking. Still, the Constitution is the law of the land, even the part that mentions natural born citizens, and interpretation is handled by the courts.

Ronnie on July 30, 2009 at 12:18 AM

IOW, when i say their is no law defining “natural born citizen”, and you say “It’s called the Constitution”, you are, in fact, being a dumbass.

Thanks for proving my point.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:36 AM

OK, we’ve moved from doubting Obama Jr’s birthplace to doubting Obama Sr’s birthplace.

“We” never doubted O’s birthplace, because “we” don’t care where he was born, only the nature of his citizenship; whether he’s natural-born or not.

Proving O was born in Hawai’i doesn’t answer the question of his natural-born status. It’s a moot point. We’re talking about someone who cannot have any foreign allegiance (through parental citizenship and allegiance passed on to offspring) to any sovereignty besides the United States. Not duel, partial, whatever.

the real problem is there is no definitive authority on just what”natural born” means.

No authority? It’s not even a question, it’s not even disputed. It’s completely clear. It’s a non-issue every time it’s mentioned in SCOTUS precedent and elsewhere. Only today are people questioning the authority of all those places where it is touched on and clearly laid out.

Everyone who’s written on it agrees on the definition of a natural-born U.S. citizen, which is NOT the same as the British common law version. Read the opinions in the cases we’ve been talking about; they draw a distinction between the British version of ‘native’ born, and the U.S. meaning. I don’t have the spots in front of me, but they’re there. I can post them later.

The point is, the natural-born clause is paramount. It’s wholly tied up in allegiance to our country, but more so with keeping foreign jurisdictions from making any legal claims over our Commander-in-Chief by way of THEIR laws claiming citizenship over the offspring of their own citizens, which British citizenship involves.

trace_9r on July 30, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Thanks for proving my point.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:36 AM

When the hell did you get a point?

Ronnie on July 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Just for fun, let me ask you. Do you think that Congress has the authority to, statutorily, define “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, or “declare war”?

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM

when i say their is no law defining “natural born citizen”

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:36 AM

When you say that, it will be the first time. And it will contradict what you said earlier.

Ronnie on July 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM

Congress can statutorily define whatever the hell it wants. And if it’s unconstitutional, it will be struck down (in theory) by the Supreme Court. You can spend all day debating who has the authority in that scenario. It’s a 3-branch government. They share it.

Ronnie on July 30, 2009 at 12:52 AM

trace_9r on July 30, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Proving O was born in Hawai’i doesn’t answer the question of his natural-born status.

I disagree. If you could prove he wasn’t born in the US, then I think there is very serious question as to whether he is “natural born”, given his lineage and the US Code governing citizenship at the time.

We’re talking about someone who cannot have any foreign allegiance (through parental citizenship and allegiance passed on to offspring) to any sovereignty besides the United States. Not duel, partial, whatever.

And Mr. Justice Grey disagreed with you. As did Mr Justice Swayne. As do lots of Constitutional scholars. As, apparently, did the US Congress, who had no problem whatsoever confirming Barack Hussein Obama’s ascent to the Presidency, knowing everything that you are pointing out.

And just who agrees with you?

Everyone who’s written on it agrees on the definition of a natural-born U.S. citizen, which is NOT the same as the British common law version.

Everyone? Let’s take a look at that little jewel…

From WorldNutDaily:

The precise meaning of the phrase is in legal dispute, with some constitutional scholars such as Prof. Jack Chin of the University of Arizona telling WND, “It doesn’t have anything to do with who your parents are.”

Professor Jamal Greene, law professor at Columbia, writing for NPR:

In light of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Natural Born Citizen Clause is a constitutional relic whose time has passed. Eligibility for the presidency and vice presidency are the only legal privileges that turn on whether someone is a native-born or naturalized citizen. A naturalized citizen has precisely the same right as someone born in this country to be elected to any other political office, to vote, or to fight and die for his country

Eugene Volokh, writing on his blog:

I have no reason to doubt that President-Elect Obama was born in Hawaii, and is therefore a natural-born citizen.

Once again, the list does go on an on. I guess it just depends on how you define “everybody”.

I don’t have the spots in front of me, but they’re there. I can post them later.

Of course you can, sweetheart. Of course you can.

The point is, the natural-born clause is paramount. It’s wholly tied up in allegiance to our country

There are a lot of high-powered legal scholars on both the left and the right, not to mention a bunch of federal judges, past and present who disagree with you. You’ll forgive me for at least considering their opinion as experts.

Now, as to your experts…???

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:59 AM

Ronnie, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:02 AM

Ronnie, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:02 AM

Yeah, I know. There is no law. And here’s a list of people who think there is. Compelling. Flake.

Ronnie on July 30, 2009 at 1:05 AM

Just for fun, let me ask you. Do you think that Congress has the authority to, statutorily, define “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, or “declare war”?

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is mentioned as an instruction to Congress: (II:4)

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This states that the mechanism is “impeachment”, which was mentioned in (I:2)

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

So, the House decides, in the Constitution, itself.

For citizenship, we have the requirement of “natural born” in (II:1)

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.

Now, a “natural born Citizen” is a specific type of American, but Congress has no power to define that term, since, in (I:8)

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Congress is only assigned power for Naturalization, which does not, by definition, include natural born (which requires no naturalization process). To my thinking, natural born citizen describes the purest sort of American, one born an American and never anything but an American, which is exactly what the clause meant, functionally, at the time of the writing since they did not allow for multiple citizenship. But this is for the SCOTUS to say, as I see it.

For declaring war, that is specifically assigned to Congress, in (I:8)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM

So, the House decides [impeachment], in the Constitution, itself.

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM

And then the Senate gets to decide if they agree with the House’s assessment of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, obviously.

I just wanted to add this for completeness.

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 1:16 AM

I wish to represent myself, and allow me to make my opening statement by dropping my drawers, here…

MadisonConservative on July 29, 2009 at 8:01 PM

I advised you to forge the evidence if you had to. You should have listen to me. I can sense by the way all the members of the jury are laughing, especially the women, that you have just as good as lost the case.

Cheshire Cat on July 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM

Re: High crimes and misdemeanors:

So, the House decides, in the Constitution, itself.

That has, at least since the days of Jerry Ford as Minority Leader (and I assume a lot longer), been the case. But my question is do you believe that Congress can, statutorily, define what HC’s & M’s are, and have the bind future Congresses, absent that Congress amending or negating the statute.

You appear to be saying they cannot. I disagree.

Now, a “natural born Citizen” is a specific type of American, but Congress has no power to define that term, since, in (I:8)

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Congress is only assigned power for Naturalization, which does not, by definition, include natural born (which requires no naturalization process).

Hmmm. Interesting argument, as I do tend to believe that each branch has only powers expressly granted to them. (Of course, judicial review sort of blows that one out of the water, doesn’t it.)

But I still hold that Congress has, in the course of carrying out their duties, great leeway in defining the processes necessary to completing those duties. For example, I have great reservations about whether the AUMF in Iraq that Congress passed and GWB signed amounted to a declaration of war. I suppose SCOTUS can try to invalidate that, at least as far as war power provisions go, but they didn’t, and I hold they never would, given their reluctance to get involved in such matters.

Likewise, the 90% bonus tax Congress was threatening to pass. To me, that’s a clear ex post facto law . But there were a lot of legal scholars who pointed out that SCOTUS tends to defer to Congress on tax issues.

To my thinking, natural born citizen describes the purest sort of American, one born an American and never anything but an American

That describes Barack Obama. He was born an American, and unless you have information the rest of us don’t, he never renounced that citizenship.

But this is for the SCOTUS to say, as I see it.

Now, do you really think SCOTUS is going to touch this issue? And if the answer to that question is “no”, do you think it proper for congress to take it up?

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:38 AM

I should add that the leeway Congress has in defining the process of carrying out their duties springs from the “necessary and proper” clause. It certainly seems to me that defining “natural born citizen” is necessary for their power to certify Presidential elections.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:50 AM

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Last things first. There is nobody I trust in either party. That’s one thing this whole nightmare has taught me well.

As much as I hear people say that Obama’s birthplace has been verified, I don’t hear anybody explaining all the anomalies and contradictions.

If he was born in Hawaii, why did he forge a COLB rather than simply order one that verified only his name and birthplace?

Why doesn’t he know what hospital he was born at? He lived in Hawaii during his teen years. He knew those hospitals. And he had his birth certificate, according to his book.

Why did his grandma Sarah say twice that he was born in Kenya? Why did Raila Odinga seal Obama’s Kenya records if there were none? Why did Ambassador Ogego say his birthplace was already well-known?

Why does he have a couple dozen social security numbers?

Why was his mom in Seattle, Washington a couple weeks after the birth? And why did both Obama and Ann Dunham’s best friend in high school lie about which year Ann moved to Seattle?

Why were both grandmas made “unavailable” to the media, once Grandma Sarah had twice said that Obama was born in Kenya?

Why did Abercrombie give an Obama-signed letter with White House seal saying he was born at Kapiolani when Snopes and various news sites had said they documented that he was born at Queens? And why did his birth certificate number come after the cert numbers of twins born the next day at Kapiolani?

Why did Fukino all of a sudden reverse over a year’s worth of saying Hawaii law forbade her from commenting on official records? If Obama had authorized the release of the information she would certainly have said so, and her spokeswoman, Okubo, would not still be telling WorldNetDaily that they haven’t been authorized to release information. So why did Fukino break the law?

If I was to just say, “Oh, well, there’s nothing strange going on here because Fukino says everything’s hunky dory” it would be like watching a CSI episode where all the evidence shows who’s the crook and then all of a sudden somebody says it was really somebody else and then the show ends. Know what I mean?

So anybody who wants to make any headway with me needs to explain what I’ve observed. Fukino didn’t even say what documents she looked at. She could have looked at a COLB that had been amended somewhere down the line or that was filed based on the word of Dunham alone so she could not be accused of lying. But still she is obviously guilty of breaking the privacy laws… So it doesn’t make sense to me.

I’ll have to see if I can find my copy of the Constitution so I can see what circumstances the wording seems to include. I can’t believe it’s not right in front of me. I always keep it right beside my computer.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:12 AM

But my question is do you believe that Congress can, statutorily, define what HC’s & M’s are, and have the bind future Congresses, absent that Congress amending or negating the statute.

You appear to be saying they cannot. I disagree.

No, I agree with you. I say the House DOES decide what HC’s and M’s are, since the House has the full power of impeachment, which is where HC’s and M’s are defined. The Senate then rules on the House’s assessment of HC’s and M’s, so there is a big check to the whole process.

Hmmm. Interesting argument, as I do tend to believe that each branch has only powers expressly granted to them. (Of course, judicial review sort of blows that one out of the water, doesn’t it.)

But I still hold that Congress has, in the course of carrying out their duties, great leeway in defining the processes necessary to completing those duties.

I agree with you on this, too. And we can’t forget that Congress can always try to do whatever they want, anyway. They can pass any law. The question is whether the SCOTUS would let it stand and what Congress would do in response (assuming the President is just signing all these as they come through, to take the Executive out of the picture for a second).

But I think that the definition of ‘natural born’ is to the SCOTUS, and that they would defend that turf, since it is a clause in the Constitution not directed at any power, but as a description in a list with other descriptions that are of obvious meaning and not requiring any thought – (until we get super high speed travel and have to take relativistic time effects to gauge what age really means!).

For example, I have great reservations about whether the AUMF in Iraq that Congress passed and GWB signed amounted to a declaration of war. I suppose SCOTUS can try to invalidate that, at least as far as war power provisions go, but they didn’t, and I hold they never would, given their reluctance to get involved in such matters.

We’ve been scared of declaring war since WWII, and that has contributed to the erosion of Constitutional authority. I don’t have any problems with the acts Congress has passed to fill in the gaps, but I think something has been lost by always using the secondary processes, instead of an occasional full declaration.

I think that the SCOTUS has been reasonable in staying out of those use of force acts, but it has certainly put its nose all over the detainees and other defense/security issues that are not domestic. I’m not comfortable with a lot of what the SCOTUS has done in this area. Not one bit.

Likewise, the 90% bonus tax Congress was threatening to pass. To me, that’s a clear ex post facto law. But there were a lot of legal scholars who pointed out that SCOTUS tends to defer to Congress on tax issues.

I’m with you on this. I don’t know the history of SCOTUS and taxes, but the SCOTUS has been letting Congress run amok, lately. I can’t see any restrictions to domestic Congressional action, anymore. When the administration started selling their public health insurance company as necessary to “provide competition” to the private insurers, I almost hit the roof – and I’m not even a lawyer. If Congress has that power, the sky’s the limit. And no one seemed to complain about this, though many yelped about the price and the inefficiency …

To my thinking, natural born citizen describes the purest sort of American, one born an American and never anything but an American

That describes Barack Obama. He was born an American, and unless you have information the rest of us don’t, he never renounced that citizenship.

I’m not talking about having to renounce American citizenship. I would not allow dual citizens, no matter the age. My thoughts are that child dual citizens are not natural born. They have many advantages over plain American kids with no other citizenships, and they suffer the one disadvantage of not being able to be President.

Then there is the question about Indonesian citizenship, in this case, too.

But this is for the SCOTUS to say, as I see it.

Now, do you really think SCOTUS is going to touch this issue? And if the answer to that question is “no”, do you think it proper for congress to take it up?

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:38 AM

Well, Congress can always take it up. Who can stop them? Congress can call for impeachment and demand discovery of documents. I don’t think it would have to come to that (they can demand documents in all kinds of ways) but they could, if they wanted. We know that this Congress wouldn’t impeach The Precedent if he had just burnt the Capitol down in order to roast a few hot dogs. They’d applaud him for it, so Congressional action is definitely out, unless something really, really, really bad happens that just lights this nation up.

As to the SCOTUS, I don’t know. They can take it and rule that multiple citizens are acceptable as natural born, taking that issue out of the fray, though perhaps generating a move for an amendment redefining natural born. But it’s a question of whether they think there is something bad to be found in the actual information, something that can’t be covered over. If there is nothing bad to be found in The Precedent’s information and national history, as claim those who issue the call for us to shut up about the whole thing, then there should be nothing else that would happen. The SCOTUS should only be scared if they think there is something in there that will render The Precedent ineligible. Otherwise, they can take it and dispose of it easily.

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 2:21 AM

It certainly seems to me that defining “natural born citizen” is necessary for their power to certify Presidential elections.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:50 AM

That’s a good point. But in the absence of them having done that appropriately, it falls on the SCOTUS, I would say. This is why I’ve been asking people if there were operational definitions for ‘natural born’ that the Electoral College has, or Congress, to use in verifying Presidents-Elect, but there seems to be nothing. It was all simple, until dual citizenship came to be accepted.

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 2:25 AM

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM

I’d have to find my copy of the Constitution to say for sure but I think I remember that being in the Constitutional powers given to Congress.

But declaring war isn’t something that can be set in the Constitution. A Constitution can’t say that we are forever at war with …. (whoever). The nature of the issue is that it has to be changed according to circumstances. High crimes and misdemeanors wouldn’t have to be as flexible but the Constitution does give the impeachable offense of treason.

By contrast, saying someone can’t be president unless they are a “natural born citizen” is the epitome of permanence. This isn’t a Minnesotan Norwegian “or whatever” kind of statement. They had something very specific in mind when they said that, and what needs to happen is we need to look at the historical context, the words as they were used by those people, and the jurisprudence in place at the time regarding those words.

Those guys were smart. They made wise statements, like saying that the nation could only exist until Congress figured out it could hand out money from taxes to pet projects and people. And those comments should give light to the questions of what was meant by the Commerce Clause and the “General Welfare” clause.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:26 AM

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:38 AM
But we know that Obama WAS something but an American. He was also a Kenyan and an Indonesian.

When you look at what he’s done he actually is more a citizen of the world/UN than of America. I don’t think that’s an accident. I think that’s a normal by-product of having been a citizen of 3 different countries. And what we see is a guy who criticizes America’s foundations and history more than he criticizes anybody else. Most conservatives recognize that and say we should fight it (which “birthers” are, along with everybody else), but give little thought to why that is.

I think the Founders knew it would be this way if we had somebody who has been through other loyalties, and that’s why they said the president should be free of those entanglements.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:35 AM

By the way, JohnGalt, I’m enjoying the respectful, earnest dialog. We can help each other sort things through.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:37 AM

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:26 AM

What I’m asking is do you think it appropriate for Congress to answer, thru statute, just what constitutes a declaration of war? Can they, for example, write a law requiring 2/3 majority for passage of war declarations, making that binding on future Congresses?

And if they can, do you think it appropriate for the SCOTUS to say, “No Congress, declarations of war must be done on an ad hoc basis, and you must not statutorily bind other Congresses from deciding their own process for declaring war?”

I think it’s clear that Congress, through the “necessary and proper” clause could do that. I’ll grant that SCOTUS could, in theory, always step in and deny them that power, but we must recognize that SCOTUS historically has been loathe to step on Congress’ toes when it comes to what I call “interbranch relations”, which war certainly is.

As are Presidential elections. Congress has Constitutional responsibilities for overseeing certification of them, and as such, they must be given authority to pass laws necessary to carry that responsibility out. As such, it seems to me that any definition of “natural born” must first be done by Congress. Of course SCOTUS can always declare they have oversight, but given their history in these matters, I suspect they wouldn’t.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 2:52 AM

I think that’s a normal by-product of having been a citizen of 3 different countries.

And having grown up in Indonesia, specifically. He spent 5 years there, from age 5 to 10, learning in their schools. That is the exact sort of circumstance that the Founders were concerned with.

I think the Founders knew it would be this way if we had somebody who has been through other loyalties, and that’s why they said the president should be free of those entanglements.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:35 AM

I believe that Washington wrote about this specific situation, of a kid being taken away to grow up in a foreign land. I’ll have to search for the letter.

To me, one of the keys is that US government is utterly unique in the world. It was more than unique back then, as it was the first of its kind, but it has remained unique in that just about every other country (save the Phillipines) has a tribal, party-oriented governmental structure with little formal separation of powers, virtual governments that rise or fall with legislative majorities, and have the party as the fundamental political element, whereas we have the individual as our fundamental political element (parties don’t even exist in our Constitution). I think this is one of the key points. It’s not like a German growing up in England or Brazil, where they have very similar governmental structures. Our structure is unlike any of them, at the most basic level, and that is reflected in the unique character of American society – which is why we have outperformed everyone else for so long and in so many areas.

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 2:54 AM

It certainly seems to me that defining “natural born citizen” is necessary for their power to certify Presidential elections.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 1:50 AM

That’s a good point. But in the absence of them having done that appropriately, it falls on the SCOTUS, I would say. This is why I’ve been asking people if there were operational definitions for ‘natural born’ that the Electoral College has, or Congress, to use in verifying Presidents-Elect, but there seems to be nothing. It was all simple, until dual citizenship came to be accepted.

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 2:25 AM

Now, let me really turn this argument around.

Clearly Congress has the power, on an ad hoc basis, to make judgments on matters like High Crimes, and declarations of war, and I think we agree that they could, if they chose, to statutorily define High Crimes and the process of declaring war, and that it would be improper for SCOTUS to interfere with those statutes.

Now, if we hold that Congress can statutorily define “natural born citizen”, as necessary and proper for carrying out their duty to certify presidential elections, do we also allow that Congress can make that decision on an ad hoc basis, as they do with HC&M and declarations of war? And if they do so (as they have apparently in this case), is it proper for SCOTUS to overrule them?

I think we would be upset if they did so on matters of HC&M or declarations of war.

The more I think about this, the uglier the possibilities get.

Time for bed. Sleep on those possibilities.

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 3:08 AM

The vampire line was priceless.

Where did she get this SS story from, and a SS number from a 190 year old??

How can that possibly be?

AprilOrit on July 30, 2009 at 3:34 AM

We get it, Allah. You’re pushing your agenda.

Ugly on July 30, 2009 at 4:09 AM

JohnGalt23 on July 30, 2009 at 2:52 AM

I see the point that you’re making and you may be right. I really don’t know.

But it does seem to me that establishing a procedure for ensuring that the natural-born requirement is met is not the same thing as defining “natural born”. I think that phrase had a very specific meaning to the Founders. Congress can do what is necessary to see that the requirement is met, but to change the actual requirement itself from the definition the Founders used would require a Constitutional amendment.

Congress could come up with a working definition of “natural born” but that would always have to be subect to Constitutional review – otherwise Congress could change the meaning of the Constitution without the required ratification process. Constitutional review can’t happen if the SCOTUS refuses to say what the Constitutional term “natural born” meant to the ones who put it in the Constitution.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM

progressoverpeace on July 30, 2009 at 2:54 AM

Wow, POP, you hit the nail on the head. Everything we’ve seen from Obama’s administration has shown derision for the separation of powers and the checks and balances. It hadn’t occurred to me that those don’t necessarily exist in the governments to which he and his parents have been loyal over the years.

Any developmental psychologist will tell you that the formative years are the most vital and have the nearly irreversible effects. What Obama learned at an emotional level about life was learned before he attended school. What he learned about community and the larger world developed in grade school. His grade school years were spent in Indonesia.

It’s also interesting that Tim Geithner worked with Ann Soetoro/Sutoro in the area of “charity” lending in Indonesia. It makes sense that the Obama regime would gather all power unto themselves in both the financial and political world.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM

AprilOrit on July 30, 2009 at 3:34 AM

It’s in the public record so we know it’s true. How this could happen in America is a very, very good question. One that deserves to be both asked and answered.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I’ll copy what I posted in a different thread, which underscores that Fukino wouldn’t have to be in on some conspiracy because she could have seen documents which were based on the fraudulent claims of Ann or Grandma, which would help explain the other evidence. If the certificate was filed in 3 out of the 4 possible ways, though, the certificate itself would be inconclusive even though the document would say he was born in Hawaii. If the certificate was filed in any of those 3 ways it would require further investigation to determine whethe it was based on a fraudulent claim – which is suggested by other evidence.

Anyway, here’s what I posted:

There’s a good article on how birth certificates could be obtained in Hawaii in 1961 at

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105371

Basically shows that fraudulent claims could easily be on the public record, and without saying what documents she looked at or how they were filed nobody can know whether the methods for obtaining a fraudulent certificate were utilized.

Especially given that neither Obama nor his half-sister can tell a consistent story about what hospital he was born at, it seems like maybe his birth was registered as not having happened at a hospital – which would mean that the account of Ann or of Grandma would have been taken at face value with no corroborating evidence.

If so, then either Ann had her first-born child outside of a hospital in Hawaii or she had her first-born child in a hospital somewhere else and lied to Hawaii in order to have him be a US citizen.

I suppose a person would have a baby outside of a hospital even where hospitals were available if they had a very short labor and couldn’t get to the hospital. Any time I’ve heard of that happening, though, it becomes an even bigger story to the mother and child than if the birth had happened in a hospital. We had a gal in our church in Minnesota who had her baby at home because her labor was so fast. Anybody in the (small) town could tell you about it – and certainly her aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, etc even if they didn’t live in the town.

My sister had 5 of her 7 kids at home on purpose. Not the first one even though she liked the idea of having a midwife and having the child at home, because on a first birth you don’t know what your particular medical vulnerabilities might be. And that’s in the 80’s, not 1961. In 1961 the routine for having children was for the mother to stay in a hospital bed for a week after the birth.

Yet Ann and Barack were in Seattle at the end of August, 1961 – alone, without Ann’s parents or husband.

Strange.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM

The original report that WND based their article on is at

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

There are updates at the bottom which show that in June of this year Hawaii changed the title at the top of their COLB’s from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth”. Around the same time they also changed policy so that they no longer issue copies of original certificates of live birth.

IOW, they made it so that the best they will offer is a computer-generated COLB (without documenting evidence such as doctor, hospital, footprints, etc) but they will CALL it a “certificate of live birth”.

So now if they print out a record of Obama’s birth – regardless of what documenting evidence it has – they can say they’ve produced his “birth certificate”. Presumably they can also say that they cannot release his original birth certificate because they cannot make copies and have to keep the original themselves.

Something that didn’t make sense to me is why Obama forged the COLB if his mother filed for a late certificate, which only required her (or Madelyn’s, possibly) word without any other documentation. Seems like this report is saying that a COLB obtained by a late registration has to be marked as such and include a reference to what documentation it was based on. At least that’s how I understand it.

In a similar way, Obama’s alleged selective service registration form obtained through a FOIA request showed that the document was generated based on NO identification. Discrepancies between the manual serial stamp and the electronic data showed that it had been tampered with.

When it was tampered with is another story because IF ANYBODY CHECKED IT AT THE TIME (which is questionable, after seeing how this crap happens) he would have had to have been registered for the draft in order to have any government job, such as taking a political office.

The information only coming out now is frighteningly illuminating.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM

If his mom or grandma filed for a late certificate they would also have had to claim a birth outside a hospital because any doctor, nurse, or midwife attending a birth would have been required to fill out a long-form birth certificate which would then be on file with the Dept of Health.

That would explain why Sarah Obama twice said he was born in Kenya, Ambassador Ogego said his birthplace in Kenya is well-known, and Raila Odinga sealed up Obama’s legal and hospital records in Kenya.

It would also explain why Obama forged the COLB.

And it would explain why Obama and his sister can’t get straight their stories about which Honolulu hospital he was born in, why neither of the claimed hospitals will verify that he was born there (not even Kapiolani, who used in a fundraising appeal a letter with Obama’s signature saying he was born there), and why both hospitals posted armed guards when these questions arose publicly.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Everyone keeps asking where this “million dollar legal fees” amount comes from… Read em and weep.

BORN IN THE USA?
Is Obama campaign cash quashing eligibility suits?
FEC shows more than $1 million paid to top law firm since election
By Chelsea Schilling

President Obama may be using campaign funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as his campaign has paid more than $1 million to his top lawyer since the election.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm [emphasis mine] Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.

The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 – to the tune of $378,375.52.

Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie – top lawyer for Obama, Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s Organizing for America – is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

…Bauer also represented Obama and the DNC in Philip Berg’s eligibility lawsuit and various other legal challenges. He and the White House have not responded to WND’s request for comment.

Perkins Coie serves high-profile clients such as Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks. In 2006, the firm also represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s alleged bodyguard and driver.

The FEC allows elected officials to use campaign funds to pay legal fees only if the action/investigations arise as a result of their tenure in office or campaigns, according to Politico.

The FEC report also reveals Obama For America has spent nearly $9.5 million in the first three months of this year – of which $6,365 in legal fees paid by Obama For America also went to Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a firm founded by Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95772

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

It would also explain why Fukino can say that SHE has determined him to be natural born – because the regulation for late regulation says that it has to be filed regardless of what documentation is given, but “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

IOW, when a delayed birth certificate is offered as evidence, the person who has been given the evidence has to decide whether it proves anything. To do that they would most certainly want to look at the documentation/evidence given when the late filing took place. The reference to what evidence was given has to be on the original birth certificate in such a case, but the evidence itself is kept in a different file.

So Fukino could look at a late-filed certificate, claim that she looked at the original, and decide it is good enough proof to make her public statement without ever having looked at THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which is kept separate from the original birth certificate.

She could make a public announcement about it if she had Obama’s permission to release the information, but they changed their own policies so that the original document cannot be copied. The law providing for late filings says that notation of what evidence was provided has to be included on the “certificates”. Makes me wonder whether Hawaii also changed whether a Certification of Live Birth has to have a notation describing what evidence the original certificate was based on.

Confusing. But it’s obvious that Hawaii has been shifting around their policies and procedures since early June of this year. I’d like to see all their departmental and other communications detailing when, why, and by whom these changes were made.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM

The regulation for late registration, it should be.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Geez, and here I thought I was the most caught up birther on here. Kudos to you, you are factually representing the discrepancies in Obama’s birth story. Well done, very well done!

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 1:12 PM

On June 10th the judge in Kerchner v Obama gave the defense an extension until June 29th to line up the legal counsel in the DOJ for Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi – the ones accused of not doing their Constitutional job of verifying eligibility. The case could not go forward until at least then.

The changes at Hawaii’s records department happened sometime between June 10th and June 18th.

Methinks the Obama crew began to realize that they are in trouble because there’s finally a judge who takes this seriously. I REALLY want to see Hawaii’s documentation for why they made the changes at the particular time they did.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Thanks. The report by a former CIA investigator that WND wrote about this morning fills in a lot of gaps. And the stuff that’s going on in Hawaii is DEFINITELY fishy – especially because of the timing. Within a week of the judge in Kerchner v Obama indicating that the defendants were going to need competent counsel, Hawaii had changed the name of their form, the policies, etc.

Now that I think about it, seems like Fukino came out with her statement shortly after WND reported that Major Cook’s case would likely be a class action suit.

I think Obama is sweating bullets.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

@ JohnGalt23

You, sir, are NO John Galt. I would forcefully remove your moniker, were it up to me.

I’ve read through your comments on here and the other COLB threads, and its obvious you think anyone needing Obama’s POTUS eligibility reviewed is a kook. Then why so many posts? Its obviously not important to you, as you feel that the matter is settled. My only satisfaction is that when the truth of his lineage/parentage/birth comes, I will have the luxury of pointing at your moniker and saying with all my passion: Ha-ha. Ala Simpsons.

So leave us birthers/documenters/question-askers alone, after all, we’re only doing the job that most Americans won’t do.

I’m a naturalized citizen, so this issue is very personal to me. I’ve been an American citizen since I was 18 months old, and having been born in a third world country, and lived in Europe most of my childhood, (Dad was USAF) I can appreciate the natural born clause in the Constitution more than most. And if I can’t be POTUS because of the natural-born clause, then neither can the Usurper.

Remember, RR said: “Trust, but Verify.”

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM

@JohnGalt23 (and those in agreement with him):

Perkins v. Elg established the differences between citizen and natural-born citizen. Ms. Elg, born in NYC of Naturalized US Citizens from Sweden (who were US Citizens prior to her birth), was declared a “natural-born citizen of the United States.” (307 U.S. 325)

US v. Wong discusses this very issue in detail. Kim, born in the US of Chinese citizens, was “deemed a citizen like a natural-born child of a US citizen” (169 U.S. 649)

Does this register? Justice Gray is comparing 2 children born in the US…Kim (of Chinese citizens) and one who’s born of US citizens (natural-born).

This case also discusses English Common Law, from which much of our law was derived in the beginning (much, not all). English Common Law determines that someone born in the UK or its Commonwealth, unless of diplomats, may be considered a “natural-born subject.” Obama’s father may have resided in the US at the time of his birth, making him subject to its laws, but Sr was a “natural-born subject” of Britain and his citizenship is conferred to his son until age 21.

I think the most important quote is from the Fourteenth Amendment:

“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States…”

As Sr was a British subject, and that citizenship is conferred to his son, then how do you mesh these 2 conflicting issues? Please, deconflict this for us, since we’re obviously too stupid to get it. I’m well aware he’s not a diplomat, but as a British subject, this creates a significat enough conflict in law to want to resolve.

If I’m a nutroot for just wanting to see all of the documents (especially any revocation of citizenship to the UK that would answer these questions), then let the ad hominems begin.

I’d also like to see his college transcripts, and any scholarship information, as I think that’s the real smoking gun. He could apply for foreign admission until age 21, and we don’t think there’s a problem here??? I think he’s covering that up because he applied as a foreign student, regardless of citizenship or he lied (that remains to be seen).

I just think it’s utter CRAP everyone got so anal about McCain’s citizenship last fall (which has its roots in English Common Law too), and both his parents are US Citizens. UTTERLY BOGUS, IMHO.

Miss_Anthrope on July 30, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4