Obama a US Citizen? Some in Congress Still Doubt

So you thought the right wing crazies who questioned President Obama’s citizenship during last year’s campaign folded their tents and went home? Guess again.

And to make matters worse, some of these people actually walk around Congress as elected officials!

Consider Rep. Bill Posey, Republican of Florida. He’s introduced a bill that would require candidates for president to supply their birth certificates to the Federal Elections Commission in order to be eligible to run.

At first, his bill had little support. Now, however, others have jumped on the bandwagon. Three members of the House from Texas, John Culberson, John Carter and Randy Neugebauer, along with Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia have signed on as co-sponsors. Last week Georgia Congressman John Campbell joined the “I wanna see a birth certificate” movement. Sen. Tom Coburn says he’ll support the bill if it reaches the Senate.

What color is the sky in their world? Neugebauer told a Texas talk show host he’s “never seen him produce documents that would say one way or another”. Hello?

obama-birth-certificate1

Factcheck.org has done the research these dolts haven’t got the brains to do themselves. They found Obama’s birth announcement in a local paper, and a copy of the certificate with a raised seal and the stamp of the state registrar. That won’t deter these people, however. They’ll simply say they’re forgeries.

Then there’s World Net Daily. The conservative site has reportedly begun fundraising for billboards across the country questioning Obama’s citizenship. What this all boils down to is the simple fact that some people will never be satisfied that this president is in fact a US citizen. Like their friends who continue to trumpet his middle name as if it’s some call to jihad (like he had a choice in the matter), these mental midgets have a vested interest in portraying Barack Obama as the Other.

It is precisely the Other that has left a stain across the legacy of this great nation. In many cases, the Other was based on race or ethnicity. That component simply can’t process the notion of a black president. However, when politicians get involved, you’ve got to figure there’s another motive here, one of speaking to the worst in America for the sake of grabbing or maintaining powder.

obama_baby512

Those members of Congress who are dumb enough to sponsor or co-sponsor a bill requiring a birth certificate to run for president are frighteningly transparent. That’s why, unless I miss my guess, the bill will only be a topic of conversation on right wing radio and television. That, after all, is where the “Obama’s not a citizen” movement got its start.

Am I nuts here? Do you think this bill has any chance of passing? You tell me.

NB: Thanks to Think Progress for the info on this.

http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/myspace_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/yahoobuzz_48.png http://www.markrileymedia.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_48.png
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
tell a friend
about it.

14 thoughts on “Obama a US Citizen? Some in Congress Still Doubt”

  1. I just find it kind of “fishy” that he’s spent so much time and effort into having his records locked away. He’s spent over 800K hiding his passports, school papers, documents, identification info, and going by the name “Barry Soretoro” – he received financial aid as in Indonesian foreign student. When that information surfaced, THAT’S where the movement got it’s start.

    FactCheck isn’t a reliable source. It’s a lot like turning to Wikipedia to write a term paper. It just doesn’t fly.

    The way I see it – if there is SO much controversy surrounding this issue, why not just release the official documents (and ALL of them) that a lot of people are asking for? If nothing else it’ll shut us “right-wing nutjobs” up and it’ll never be an issue.

    Can’t forget this:
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

    [§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]

    Hawai’i will issue a certification of live birth to children that were not born in Hawai’i.

    If there’s nothing to hide – then why spend so much time, energy, effort, and money in hiding it?

  2. Hi. On ableist language: “crazies” and “nuts”, while colorful, perpetuate stereotypes against people with mental illness, even if unintended.

    This is an old bad habit in American politics: calling opponents, fringe or otherwise ideas, “crazies”, etc. I was surprised to find it was used in a Lincoln election, source: David Herbert Donald’s books on Lincoln. One that I’m reading is “We Are Lincoln Men”, 2003

    One result of stereotyping is the fear of mentally ill by police, which has resulted in people being tasered, sometimes resulting in death, rather than using psychiatric emergency units to subdue someone in distress.

  3. Oh, and just so there’s no misunderstanding – I’m not against having a half-white/half-black president. Race has nothing to do with the controversy, so let’s drop that “race card” thing.

  4. Although relevant, a birth certificate is not the primary issue in regards to the unresolved questions of the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS. Here is the legal (as opposed to the conspiracy) question that must be answered by SCOTUS in order to lay the matter to rest – one way or the other.

    During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. How is it possible for a natural born citizen of the United States to be governed – at birth – by British law?

    That question is not about theories regarding a birth certificate. That question is about the law.

  5. His birth certificate does not matter unless he was not born is this country. Obama still is not a natural born citizen. Your parents have to be citizens as well as being born in the United States to meet the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution for eligibility for President.

    Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
    Posted in Uncategorized on June 16, 2009 by naturalborncitizen http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    One of my readers by the name of  Stephen Tonchen has created an introductory primer on Obama POTUS eligibility.  Much of the substance of the primer has been culled from my blog and helpfully supplemented by Mr. Tonchen’s own research.  This is by far the most clear, concise and powerful document created to help educate your friends and family on the eligibility issue.  I strongly urge my readers to download it and to link to it wherever possible.
    I will just reprint its discussion about the important and still controlling SCOTUS case – Minor vs. Happersett:

    In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
    The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

    In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

    …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

    In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.
    It is those same doubts discussed so openly in the Minor case that need to be discussed in open court today.  If SCOTUS expressed such doubts then, then our current SCOTUS ought to enlighten us now.  As I’ve stated over and again, this is a legal question already considered by our highest court in 1874 – a full six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.  This is an important time reference which should be wielded at all who state the 14th Amendment is controlling as to nbc status.  It is not.  SCOTUS expressed their doubts clearly six years later in the Minor case which has never been over-ruled.

    The issue is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legal question, a legal question that SCOTUS precedent admits to not having cleared up yet.  It is not settled law and until it is our country and the Presidency are not legitimate.

    The entire Primer which is a must read can be found at http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

  6. Thank you, 08hayabusa, for the great reference. Hopefully folks will read it and, if in doubt of its accuracy, check out all of the references in it so that they can be informed before they express themselves.

  7. Obama published a statement at his website which said his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    How can a natural born citizen of the United States be governed – at birth – by British law?

    No person is eligible to be President when their father is a foreigner. This fact makes Obama a dual citizen, USURPER and FRAUD. To ignore the facts will not change those facts.

  8. The constitution does not actually clearly define the term naturally born citizen. the supreme court, the highest court of the land has already decided there was no case to plead with this.

    You have to realize the real issue with the people who still doubt Obama’s place of birth is not really the citizenship issue, it’s a racial issue. They cannot accept a black president so they use citizenship issue as a facade. Some even claim he’s a citizen of Kenya, based on no evidence and they don’t know squat about the law either way.

    This issue will never end with these people no matter what document is provided. They’ll just say those documents are forgeries etc… unfortunately they are crazy’s, that’s just a fact.

  9. During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.  Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?

    Thomas Jefferson 1777 “We can say with confidence that a natural born citizen of the U.S. means those persons born whose father the U.S. already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e. born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the U.S.”

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

    The Constitution may not define what the founding fathers took for grated everyone would always know, but they certainly defined it in Federalist papers and other writings. And there is an enormous amount of historical precedent too.

    Both of your parents have to be citizens at your birth and you have to be born in the jurisdiction of the United States to be a natural born citizen.

    Barack’s father was not an American citizen therefore Barack is not a natural born citizen. It has nothing to do with racism!

  10. I remember another case that the SCOTUS settled despite the written content of the law governing election procedures and results… bush v. gore, I believe was the case. The law said one thing, the SCOTUS decided otherwise, contrary to consitutional caveats regarding equal protection under the law for voters. The law may state one thing, but settled law is established once it has been decided by the SCOTUS. Although this matter was not brought to the court through litigation, I believe, given that Mr. Obama was sworn into the office of the presidency by the chief justice, the case is settled. Hail to the Chief.

  11. The case is not settled by a long shot. For reasons only known to SCOTUS they heard two cases before the full court and denied them both without explanation. These cases Donfrio v. Wells and Wrotnowski v. Connecticut Secretary of State both dealt with Obama’s father being a non citizen and Obama’s dual citizenship. i do not need to tell anyone that you don’t get into the U.S. Supreme without merit. Why they didn’t take it the next step to open court, only they know. But this is not going away.

    I will post this one more time. See if he’s qualified by what President Jefferson said or Rep. Bingham said on the house floor 89 years later.

    During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?

    Thomas Jefferson 1777 “We can say with confidence that a natural born citizen of the U.S. means those persons born whose father the U.S. already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e. born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the U.S.”

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

    The Constitution may not define what the founding fathers took for grated everyone would always know, but they certainly defined it in Federalist papers and other writings. And there is an enormous amount of historical precedent too.

    Both of your parents have to be citizens at your birth and you have to be born in the jurisdiction of the United States to be a natural born citizen.
    Barack’s father was not an American citizen therefore Barack is not a natural born citizen. He is a native born citizen which does not qualify him under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States to be President of the United States.

  12. They are native born citizens, but they should not be citizens at all. And I’m assuming you mean illegal alien children. Wong Kim Ark, which I believe is the only Supreme Court ruling on foreigners having children in the U.S. was referring to legal immigrants. How we went from that to anchor babies is beyond me.

Leave a Reply