I don’t blame lawmakers for wanting to dodge reporters when asked about Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president. The way the MSM has intentionally marginalized, and narrowly defined the issues there is reason to be fearful without the facts.

From now on you don’t have to duck the questions. Once you are armed with the following you should seek out the MSM and ask why they haven’t done their job.

First and foremost, those of us who now number in the hundred of thousands are not “birthers” the pejorative term used by the MSM to ridicule our efforts to get to the truth. We are patriots. Those defending Team Obama’s actions are either parrots, pawns, or fools. This is not an issue of the extreme right wing of the Republican party. We come from diverse backgrounds, we are black, white, brown, independents, conservatives, former Democrats AND MORE. We are not racists, the now overly used political assisins bomb, hurled to make people duck and run.

Why is this issue so important? Because if the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution is not upheld, anyone including a foreign national could run for office? Before you say that couldn’t happen, it already has… just ask Roger Calero.

Who is Roger Calero? Calero was born in Nicaragua and one of the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party. His name appeared on the presidential ballots in New Jersey, Delaware, Minnesota, New York and Vermont. He isn’t a natural born citizen or even a naturalized citizen. Calero is a permanent resident alien with a green card yet he was certificed to run. When Leo Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State it was because she allowed Obama, McCain (with his own natural born citizenship probems) and Calero to run without verifing their eligibilty.

If Obama’s natural born citizenship isn’t validated, precedence will have been set that will allow future candidates to ignore this Constitutional requirement. Governor Schwarzenegger could become President even though he was born in Germany. This is a sneaky way to sidestep the Constitution. This is why Chris Matthews and a host of others over at MSNBC, CNN, etc. don’t want new legislation introduced that would require future candidates to provide conclusive proof that they are natural born citizens. Should this escape anyone’s attention, that would also mean Obama running for a second term!

There are a host of lawmakers and attorneys (Jonathan Turley and John Dean) who are well versed in this topic & who have chosen to look the other way because they believe the natural born citizen clause is no longer necessary. Rather than do the hard work and pass a Constitutional amendment, they remain silent on this issue. Congresss hasn’t been silent on this issue.  Just look at House Resolution 88 and CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT and the hearing before the subcommittee on the Constitution of the One Hundred and Sixth Congress.

Why this needs to be resolved before another piece of legislation is passed if Obama is ineligible then nothing in his Administration is legally binding, his cabinet appointments, his czars, all legislation including the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill. That means Geithner is gone, Gibbs gone, Biden gone … I don’t have to go on and on, do I? No wonder Roland Martin got hysterical on Lou Dobbs the other night. He knows it’s over and saying its too late because Obama is already President is flat out wrong!

Was Obama born in Hawaii? Maybe, but it doesn’t matter because his citizenship status at the time of his birth was British. His Kenyan father was a British national whose citizenship was passed onto to son. His mother was too young to pass her citizenship onto her child because she was underage at the time. Is Barack a citizen today, after all his mother was born in the US.  The answer is maybe, but even if it is a resounding YES, the best case scenario for him is he was born with dual citizenship and that disqualifies him. PERIOD!

What’s so important about being a natural born citizen? This is from Constitutionally Speaking:

Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed to insure…attachment to the country:

“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

As Leo Donfrio said on his blog this morning, our Founding Fathers set a higher standard of citizenship in order to become POTUS. Natural born citizenship is a higher form of citizenship and it is different from being a naturalized citizen or a dual citizen.

The following is from outside the country and Canada Free Press, since we cannot rely on the MSM to tell us the truth:

By JB Williams Wednesday, June 10, 2009

I can’t remember any time in my life when more was at stake.

In the end, it all comes down to the U.S.Constitution. It either stands as written and ratified, or it is a meaningless piece of paper of no use to any American ever again.This is the Constitutional Crisis so many worried about when Obama chose to seek an office he refused to demonstrate his eligibility for. It should have never been allowed to happen.

By mica

18 thoughts on “OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE – WHAT LAWMAKERS NEED TO KNOW BEFORE THE AUGUST RECESS– WHAT THE MSM REFUSES TO REPORT – (Part One)”
  1. More than five years have passed since this article was posted, and no Constitutional crisis has occurred. In fact, no member of Congress has even called for am investigation of Obama's eligibility.

    Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama's birth on US soil has been proven by (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama's father's residence status and wrote: "They have one child, born in HONOLULU."

  2. To All–Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! This has certainly been an interesting year; and although it is almost over we cannot lose the focus of this year’s events and the ramification it has wrought on our nation. As I go quitely into the new year I will not reamin quite as the year starts. We have much work to do in 2010 before the midterm elections if we are going to right this country, and reclaim our constitution and the rights it affords all of us. I shall return with all guns blazing. Enjoy your family and stay safe, and remember our armed forces.

    Jim Buzzell
    Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
    United States Navy
    “Going in Harms Way”

  3. To: smrstrauss:

    Tuesday morning has come and gone; the Judge Carter has ruled; the trial is tenatively set for Januare 26, 2010; a ruling on the mostions to dismiss and discovery will be heard and this case will move forward. Obama, etal need to get prepared this is not going to be easy for them to defend, since they will need to bring evidence under oath of Obama’s citizenship, status of dual Citizenship, what is his real name, did he commit purgery in his eligibility statement signed the various states, and his Illioirs Bar Licenses Application. Much to be laid out in court before the judge. We all know that however the judge decides this will through the appeal process end up at SCOTUS who then have jurisdiction over the matter as setforth in the constitution. Study well and lets see where you end up on tis issue in the final analysis.

  4. To: smrstrauss:

    You stil haven’t got it right, what is the problem?

    Do you not understand the constitution was written, signed and ratified to protect the Constitutional Republic the Founding Fathers set in place 233 years ago.

    As you and I have discussed before, “Natural Born Citizen” is distinctively different from “Citizen” however achieved. You cannot be President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America simply by being a “Citizen” of the United States.

    You have argued that English Common Law is the guiding principle in this issue, it is not.

    When the Fouynding Fathers setout to write the constitutional document they were not predisposed to make English Common Law the law of the new republic they were about to set up. This is why they looked to the “Law of Nations” for the guiding principles to be used in forming the constitution and the new Laws of the United States of America. Their guiding principles on how best to protect and defend the constitution once signed and ratified was to ensure that the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was different from a “Citizen” of the United States so the offices could be protected from and foriegn influences and thereby compromise the constitution and the country from overthrough.

    You have argue that the Law of Nations was not the influence and guiding principle used to establishe the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement for President and Commander in Chief, you are dead wrong; and in my opinion using the liberal, leftist, socialist spin to convince others that English Common Law prevails, again wrong.

    As I have said and asked in my past dialog with you; why would the “Founding Fathers”, throughing off the yoke of British Empire look to English Common Law as a vehicle to establish a new nation? It did not make sense then and it does not make sense now.

    Obama, at best could be a “Citizen”, if a “Citizen”, he could only be a dual citizen; which in and of itself disqualifies him for President and Commander in Chief.

    The arguement that all birth records were distroyed when Hawaii when to an electronic vital statisics system are not true; I pesonally verified that fact with a phone call to the Health Department’s Vital Statisics Office and was informed that not only are records on file but a certified copy can be picked up over the counter, once the fee is paid, the same day; with some exception which will take two or three days because the records are so old, were not transferred to the electronic system, that they need to be retrieve for micro-film. The person I spoke to stated “no records have been destroyed or purged from the file base”. So as far as I am concerned that issue is put to rest.

    If you read the article above which you responded to; any reasonable person could discern that there is a smoking gun here; that resonable doubt exists, and Obama either needs to come forth with the necessary evidence to prove his elibility, or should do the nation a favor, and resign before he is removed form office.

    Tuesday morning, 9:00AM U.S. District Court in Santa Ana CA will have a discovery motion heard on this issue. Judge Carter will make history if he rules in favor; and if he does not it will go to appeal.

    Standby!

  5. Re: “All he has to do is show copy the birth certificate he says he found in an old book, the one referred to in Dreams of My Father. Case closed right? We could all move on right? BTW, any reason he can’t show us his other records?”

    One reason that he cannot show the birth certificate that he said he found a long time ago in an old book is that he lost it.

    Maybe he left the birth certificate IN the old book. You know what happens to old books? They get thrown out when people move. So, there is an excellent change that Obama’s family lost the original.

    So Obama asked for a new copy of the original birth certificate in 2007, and Hawaii sent him the Certification of Live Birth. That is what it sends to everyone, and it is the legal document of Hawaii.(http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html)

    Re his other records. I take it you are referring primarily to the Occidental College records requested in Keyes v. Obama. The answer to this is that you should take a look at what was demanded in the subpoena. The plaintiffs demanded only Obama’s complete academic records and complete housing records, and forgot (!!!) to ask for records of financial aid. I’m sure you will not believe this, so take a look for yourself.

    The result is that even if the subpoena were granted, Occidental would not have provided financial aid records, and so the key issue of whether Obama was a foreign student would not have been answered in any case.

    But, you may ask, why didn’t Obama allow Occidental to provide the other records. First, the request for housing records is pretty shocking. What right have the plaintiffs to know who Obama lived with (and the privacy of that person is important too). Second, is that if Occidental had provided COMPLETE academic records, that would have been considerably more than the grade-point averages that other presidents have revealed. It would have given all the courses Obama took and his record in each one of them.

    I’m thinking that when other presidents get elected it may not be such a good thing to have a precedent in which (1) outsiders can demand to know who she or he lived with while at college; (2) how good or bad she did in every course.

    If you are suggesting that Occidental’s financial aid to Obama would have proven that Obama was a foreign student, it would not have. It could have proven that Occidental either (1) thought that Obama was a foreign student or (2) manipulated its rules to give financial aid to someone as a foreign student even though that person was not a foreign student. The latter is Occidental’s right.

    Still, the plaintiffs (Keyes, etc) simply forgot to ask about the financial aid records. Or, maybe they didn’t forget. Maybe they deliberately did not ask.

    Both the US State Department and Indonesia have now said that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

  6. From Today’s Wall Street Journal:

    The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues.

    FactCheck.org has a close-up photo of the certificate, which states clearly at the bottom: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” If a court were somehow to take up the question of Obama’s eligibility, then, the birth certificate would almost certainly be sufficient to resolve the question in his favor. The opposing side would have to provide serious evidence calling into question the veracity of Hawaii’s official state records. Innuendo and hearsay would not be admissible.

    Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.

    Ah, but what about the original birth certificate? This is the nub of the birther “case,” and this is where things get really obscure.

    As the Star-Bulletin notes, Hawaiian birth certificates have changed in form since Obama was born. Back then, the official record was a paper document with the title “certificate of live birth” (rather than “certification”), and it included “more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc.” Hawaii no longer issues those old-style birth certificates:

    [Spokeswoman Janice] Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

    ”At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

    Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

    ”The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.

    CNN has reported–or rather, CNN executive Jon Klein reported to staffers in an email that others reported–that the obsolete paper certificates were destroyed when the department switched to electronic record-keeping. Klein’s information appears to have been in error. The Honolulu Advertiser reported yesterday that Okubo and her boss, Chiyome Fukino, both confirm that Obama’s original birth certificate still exists. Fukino says she has seen it and that the information matches the now-official electronic records reflected on the certificate Obama has released.

    So why doesn’t Obama release the original certificate? The Advertiser says it is “unclear” whether the president “would even be allowed to see it if he asked.” It is clear, though, that the Hawaii statute governing disclosure of public records does not prohibit state officials from providing him with a copy, since he is “the registrant” and therefore has “a direct and tangible interest” in the record. One would think that Obama could persuade state officials to give him a copy, even if that is not their usual policy.

    But the real question is: Why should he? The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit.

    Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.

    The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.

    The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist–which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.

    In a Commentary article last year, William F. Buckley recounted the way he, Sen. Barry Goldwater and a handful of other top conservatives worked to stigmatize the John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, maintained, among other things, that President Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the U.S. government was “under operational control of the Communist Party.” The Birchers, like the birthers, made respectable conservatives look like kooks, and in preparation for a prospective Goldwater presidential campaign, Buckley and his associates “thought it best to do a little conspiratorial organizing of their own against it.”

    They succeeded in “excommunicating” the Birchers. It’s probably impossible to do the same to the birthers, because today the right wing is too vast to mount much of a conspiracy. The birthers are likely to be with us for as long as Obama is president–and because of them, it is more likely that this will be for the next 7½ rather than just 3½ years.

    end quote

  7. Re: “All he has to do is show copy the birth certificate he says he found in an old book, the one referred to in Dreams of My Father. Case closed right? We could all move on right? BTW, any reason he can’t show us his other records?’

    He said he found it a long time ago. Since then he may have lost it. Probably he did lose it. Many of us lose our birth certificates. So, he asked Hawaii to send him another copy. Hawaii sent him the Certification of Live Birth, which is what it sends to everyone, and it is the only thing it sends. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

    That being the case, Obama cannot show the original. He can only show what Hawaii sent him.

    The problem, therefore, is with Hawaii. If Hawaii changes its rules to make the birth records of a President of the United States public documents, then all of us can see and confirm where Obama was born, and all the other details on the original birth certificate.

    But Obama cannot order Hawaii to release the original. He does not have authority over a state. He can request that Hawaii make an exception and release the original, but then so can we. The way to see the original, which I am convinced will show that he was born in Hawaii, is to petition the governor of Hawaii to change the rules to make the birth certificate files of a president public documents.

    1. smrstrauss:

      He lost it? How’bout his dog ate it? LOL … please, I’m beggin ya … you are making yourself look silly!

  8. Re: “(Of course, there’s the additional issue of BHO losing American citizen status if/when he became an Indonesian citizen…”

    Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. Both the Indonesian government and the US State Department have said that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.

  9. Obama never was a citizen of Indonesia, as both Indonesia and the US State Department have now said.

    Obama has posted the Certificate of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and which is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html

    That being the case, how can Obama post the original birth certificate if Hawaii did not send it to him? Hawaii sent him the Certification of Live Birth, which is what it sends to everyone.

    1. smrstrauss:

      All he has to do is show copy the birth certificate he says he found in an old book, the one referred to in Dreams of My Father. Case closed right? We could all move on right? BTW, any reason he can’t show us his other records?

  10. Here’s Obama’s dilemma in a nutshell (READ VERY CAREFULLY AND DIGEST):

    If BHO shows his original long form birth certificate, indeed showing he was born in Hawaii, it will also show his father was American citizen, Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan/British citizen, Barack Obama Sr. While that would allow Barack Jr. to be POTUS eligible as BOTH a “citizen”/“native born citizen” AND an Article 2 “natural born citizen” — that is, born to two American citizens on American soil — it would simultaneously show he is a fraud hiding his real father — an unacceptable political debacle.

    If, on the other hand, BHO keeps hiding his original long form birth certificate — while simply repeating, without showing, he was born in Hawaii — he can still CLAIM BOTH he was born in Hawaii AND his father was the Kenyan/British Barack Obama Sr. This would enable Barack Jr. to claim he’s a “citizen”/“native born citizen” but it would mean (if a federal court would ever get around to declaring and thus far no one has standing to bring the suit) that he’s NOT an Article 2 “natural born citizen” and thus not eligible to be POTUS — a legal/constitutional debacle since all acts under an illegal POTUS are void.

    So it seems, BHO has elected option one until forced to go option two because for now it looks like no federal court will ever find a plaintiff with standing. (Of course, there’s the additional issue of BHO losing American citizen status if/when he became an Indonesian citizen — that is, IF he returned and was naturalized he would be a legal citizen, but would lose both native and natural born status, and, IF he returned and was not naturalized, he would be an illegal immigrant unlawfully in this country — but we’ll leave that for another day.)

    1. Jack:

      You are not really asking anyone to believe that the reason BHO hasn’t released ALL(school records, passport files, selective service, Harvard, Occidental College etc.) the documents that verify his claim to natural born citizenship is because his father is Frank Marshall Davis? Even on the face of it, this is an asinine concept. Notice I am referring to the concept.

      I’ve written about Davis (acknowledged sex pervert and Communist) and Malcolm X (someone he could be proud of) as possibly being his father and have acknowledged that would indeed qualify him. Are you kidding me? He’s put the country through this because he’s embarrassed of Davis at the same time nude pictures of his mother are all over the Internet and have been for many months? That doesn’t fly. If this is a trial balloon, they need to try again.

      He can claim any damn thing he wants but that doesn’t make it the truth. Things will reach a critical mass on this issue and people and organizations that have helped perpetuate the fantasy will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Read the post again and consider the long term consequences of aiding and abetting a fraud in the White House.

Comments are closed.

x  Powerful Protection for WordPress, from Shield Security
This Site Is Protected By
Shield Security