« Sgt. Crowley Don’t Let Obama & Gates Use You At The Beer Summit | Main | Welcome Free Republic Readers! »

Wednesday, 29 July 2009



We also believe that he may have attended school as an Indonesian. That would certainly bring up even more questions concerning dual loyalties.

Could it be possible that Obama has held four different citizenships? We know of two for sure. British and Kenyan.
Could he truly be citizen of the world? A Kendobritinesian?

Tommy De Seno

"Kendobritinesian." LOL! You're funny Sandy.

John Feeny

Justified _ I have a blog at www.conrest.blogspot.com - The Conservative Resistance - check it out if you get a chance - I like your work - good stuff


Probably the same reason Bush sealed his driving and National Guard records in Texas.

Jersey Girl, you are friggin nuts and I love it. THIS is the Jersey Girl I want to see more of...the conspiracy theorist who closes his eyes to facts (even World Net Daily confirmed the birth certificate).

I hope all of your senators and congressmen latch on to the "Birther" movement. Then, when you are all standing on the plank, Obama just may unseal the records. I wouldn't mind having 100 Democrat senators and a 434 member Democrat congress.

As your fascist dictator once said, "Bring it on!"

We have a 10% unemployment rate and you are claiming that the birth certificate has bleeding ink.

Stay classy, Jersey Girl.


I agree with most of this article but I would like to point out that some states will not give out an original birth certificate. There is only one original and that is kept by the state. The only thing you can get from the state is a certified copy of birth record. Mine from PA has on it "This is to certify, that this is a correct copy of a birth certificate as filed in the Vital Statistics office, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg." I do have the original "Notification of Birth Registration" that was given to my parents to verify the info given to the state. It is hand writen and not dated and can not be used in place of a "Birth Certificate". If Obama had something like that he should show it.


You right-wingers are really kooks. I hope he never shows any documentation to you kooks so you can keep your conspiracy theory alive. Plus, it's just too funny and I need the laugh!!


There is a problem with your assertion that "There is a Constitutional mandate that the President be a natural-born citizen, and if Obama is not one, he certainly will have committed the biggest fraud since the White Sox threw the World Series."

The problem is that the term "natural-born citizen" occurs only in the Constitution and is not further defined in the Constitution, or anywhere else. Hence there is no concise, legal definition of the term natural-born. As the case history of the meaning of "Naturalized" citizen shows, such definitions are not obvious and are arrived at via the constitutional process (testing the meaning through court cases thereby establishibg legal precedent, amending the Constitution so that the meaning is clear, etc).

That's what should happen in this case. Short of amending the Constitution itself so that it provides a clear, unambiguous definition of "natural-born" the issue needs to be taken to the court where I assume it will be eventually be appealed up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision will clarify the meaning of natural-born.

It would be nice if these things were obvious and meant whatever seemed like "common sense" to you and me today, but the the founding fathers were with it enough to realize that common sense is a fickle beast and leave us with a Constitutional *process* we can follow to deal with issues like this.

My personal opinion: There is nothing in the case that would justify putting Obama's eligibility "on hold" while the case proceeds. The case should proceed so that the Supreme Court will be able to render a judgement and thereby provide a clear definition of the meaning of natural-born so that this will not be an issue in future presidential elections.

Mountain Jack

The Certification of Live Birth IS the official birth certificate record in Hawaii since they were certified to do so by the Federal Government in 2001.

The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid.

The Department of State has issued regulations under CFR22.51.42 that state the following requirements for a citizen to prove birth in the United States:

(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant show proof that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the
burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

Tom O'Malley

Under the English common law at the time that our Constitution was ordained and established, a 'natural born' subject was a person who was born on English soil, and under the jurisdiction of the king. Even a child born to an alien was considered a natural born subject as long as they were born under the jurisdiction of the king.

Any interpretation of the true meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’, as it is meant in the context of a person’s Constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States, must be viewed in the light of the English common law, not on the words that were authored by a citizen from a country with a different common law view.

The courts of the United States are required, by previous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to view those words in light of their meaning under English common law at the time that the Constitution was ordained and established. That meaning has already been provided in the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898. A person who is born in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, at birth, even if both parents were aliens.

To modify the meaning of our Constitution by using definitions that were not germane to the principles and laws that our Constitution was based on is not a true conservative principle. It is, in fact, a position that would only be taken by a radical activist.

Tommy De Seno

Mountain Jack,

People can falsely certify things (not saying that happened with the Obama cert). The Certificate of Live Birth is just a person certifying that an original does exist.

To satisfy the birthers, what harm will come to Obama if he just allows inspection of the original? None. It will shut them up for good.

I just don't understand why he won't.


Consciously or subconsciously, I think you do understand why Obama won't release the original birth certificate. From your article...
"The Birthers believe that Obama’s records from college and graduate school will show he matriculated as a foreign born student."
...and this...
"The Birthers believe the records will show Obama received financial aid as a foreign born student."

Troy a

OMG. And he didn't prove he was a human being or that he is a male, or ...? Crazy wingnuts.


Let's face it, Obama wasn't born, he scrapted off a whore house wall


The problem is that most people don't know that the State of Hawaii, currently and at the time of Obama’s birth, allows for the registration of birth certificates of children born out of the state. Here is the text of the law allowing such registrations from the State of Hawaii’s own website:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]


This is why his Certificaton of Live Birth is questionable. It can also be proof of just an out of state birth registration.

Tommy De Seno

Scattergood that's an interesting point.


Tommy, thanks. And it gets even worse. The newspaper announcements are based on additions to the State of Hawaii birth registration database. What this means is that just the mere registration of birth from an out of state location will cause the newspapers to announce that a state resident had a child. Again, another piece of evidence that 'proves his Hawaiian birth' actually just proves that somebody registered a birth to people who claimed Hawaii as their home within the last year.


Great article! Yep, it's as simple as that. Put the responsibility where it should be, on the shoulders of Obama.

Maybe he'd like to explain the other forged document for his selective service registration, too. Just sayin.....


Possibly President Obama has chosen not to release the original document because he would prefer to have a group of opponents look ridiculous by pursuing this non-issue.
The document he has released is indeed only a "... certification that an original does exist" but if you read the not so fine print at the bottom, you can see that the document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of the birth in any court proceeding. What that means is that unless someone can prove that either the President was born elsewhere or that his document is false, neither of which has happened, any US court will take that document as proof of his birth in the State of Hawaii.
There are a lot of aspects of President Obama's presidency and policy which should be vigorously challenged, but pursuing this ridiculousness is nothing but a waste of time and a distraction from the real issues.

Tommy De Seno

Well Andy if Obama is doing as you suggest, not releasing any originals because the issue makes those opposing him look bad, the that certainly cuts against his claim of wanting to be a uniter.

I don't like the controversy any more than you do. I'd rather he release the original birth cert and his original school records. The birther's would be left with one criticism: "You took too long." But it would be over.

That's why I blame him for the continued existence of the issue.

Just release the originals and be done with it.

By the way - prima facie evidence doesn't mean you win. It means you win if unopposed.

R. K. Kilpatrick


What to Tell The Birthers' Bashers

You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama’s eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a “citizen” is simply a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. It is this definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. “citizen” under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many “natural born Citizens” in our country from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-”natural born Citizen” to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. And to permit this is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


Tommy, I agree with you about President Obama's rather dubious record as being "a uniter." His rather less than Presidential performance in the Gates affair is the most recent example of him not being a uniter and not being post-racial as well.

However, as far prima facie evidence is concerned, your definition "It means you win if unopposed" is really no different than what I had stated.

In any court, one party or the other will have the burden to prove their case. If you and Barack Obama were hypothetically meeting in court to establish that he is a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be President as stipulated by the Constitution, the burden of proof would initially be on his shoulders. By presenting his document, his burden of proof would have been met. As such, burden to proof would then shift to your shoulders. For you to prevail in the case, you would need to prove that he was not a natural born citizen. The obvious avenues would be the ones I mentioned, i.e. prove that he was born elsewhere or prove that his Certificate of Live Birth is false.

As of yet, I have not seen anyone raise any credible evidence to support the claim against President Obama. Certainly your own article here raises no new points along those lines, and certainly nothing that could overturn the prima facie evidence that he has presented. So if you do have some evidence that President Obama was born in Kenya or Malaysia or wherever, please do write the article with you supporting evidence. Until you or another "birther" can present such evidence, the President's claim will in the legal sense remain unopposed and his prima facie evidence will continue to carry the day.

Tommy De Seno

Andy if I was suing Obama the burden of proof would be on me, not him. He would not have to put a certification of live birth or anything else in evidence until I proved my case first.

That's part of what is wrong with the current state of affairs over this issue.

Normally, once I file suit, I'm allowed a period of "discovery" and Obama couldn't stop me from then getting a copy of his school records or inspecting the original birth certificate.

Then I would know if there is a case or not. I could go forward if there was something or drop it if there wasn't.

Right now no one can get to the materials that would show where he was born, either here or elsewhere.

Despite claims to the contrary, no one has seen what in law is called Best Evidence of where he was born. Everyone, even his most avid supporters, are doing nothing more than I'm doing - taking Obama at his word.

Which brings me to you calling me a birther. You are obviously a bright guy judging from your writing. But surely you've seen in both my posts on the topic I'm not a birther - I said both times I take Obama at his word - he was born in Hawaii.

That doesn't mean I also can't find it a strange that he won't release the original school records or allow an inspection of the original birth certificate, because that would not only end it, it would be fair (as fair as they make it in Court) to the birthers.

So far no Court has allowed any lawsuit filed to get that far. It's my understanding the suits get dismissed because the Courts have said that plaintiff has no standing in the case by simply being an American citizen. That means the Court ruled the American citizen has no real interest in the outcome. I certainly don't agree with that.

I'm not sure then who would be a plaintiff with standing to enforce that part of the US Constitution, other than John McCain until the election and Joe Biden after the election.


Tommy, my apologies for linking you to the "birthers" I had not actually intended to do that, although upon re-reading my post, I see that the words I used unfortunately did exactly that. I do agree that you have approached the thing from a much more level headed perspective.

My "hypothetical" and fictional court case intended to simplify the argument, perhaps complicated it.

My real point Barrack needed to do something to back up his claims of Hawaii birth and provided Certificate of Live Birth. I don't know who all has had a chance to physically touch and verify the authenticity of it, but from what I've seen on internet, even realizing that everything I've seen could be theoretically faked with a large enough conspiracy, the fact is I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on his Certificate of Live Birth being a fake. And if it is real, then anyone challenging his claim of being born in Hawaii would need to provide some concrete evidence to the contrary. So far, I've seen none.

The other points you make, the school and financial aid records are I think extremely valid. Those are things that I too would like to see, and suspect that if we did see would prove be very enlightening. To me these should be handled as separate issues from the birth certificate issue.

Interested Party

What about looking at immigration records. ICE maintains immigration records for visitors to the US.

BHO went to Bali with Michelle to work on writing his book, with Bali being part of Indonesia. I think this was about 1990/91. He also went to Indonesia and then on to visit his mother in Pakistan in 1980/81. BHO also returned to the US from Indonesia with his father in 1971/72, when he was 10.

Notice BHO always likes to travel to Indonesia?

What other countries did BHO travel to other than Indonesia and Pakistan?

What passport was he traveling on during these travels.

Especially interesting would be what passport did he travel on when he departed the US for Indonesia when he was 5 AND again when he returned when he was 10.

BTW, are not Indonesian passports good for 10 years?

I wonder if a FOIA request would have any success?

Just a few interesting questions to ask?


There is a suit filed right now to verify a Kenyan Birth Certificate.


Go check it out.

This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961

The comments to this entry are closed.

RightyBlogs Headlines