Is The President-Elect Eligible?
November 29, 2008 – The circumstantial evidence of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility to serve as the President of the United States seems, as they say, overwhelming.
By Dave Eriqat
As I stated in my own comments to my post, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Government, I have doubts about Mr. Obama’s eligibility to actually be the president of the United States, according to the inviolable requirements imposed by the Constitution.
I am totally non-partisan and would describe my political inclination as libertarian or even more accurately, anarchist. Unlike some partisan folks, I do not seize upon every little piece of news or every discrepancy as evidence that Mr. Obama is ineligible. Until recently the issue never even entered my mind. Nevertheless, my reason for writing this post is that every time I run across another unsought and unexpected piece of evidence, my doubts about his eligibility grow. It is precisely because I continue encountering more such evidence that I felt this issue warranted a deeper examination.
I had doubts about Mr. McCain’s eligibility as well, since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. With the election now behind us, those doubts are obviously no longer relevant. Besides, if I understand the spirit of the Constitution correctly, if the Panama Canal Zone were a U.S. territory at the time of Mr. McCain’s birth, then his birth would qualify as “natural born.” No such territorial generosity can be accorded the nation of Kenya, however, if, in fact, that’s where Mr. Obama was born.
I honestly don’t care who is the president since I regard all of our so-called “leaders” with equal cynicism. But until anarchy is declared to be the official system under which we live, I still harbor a certain loyalty and devotion to the Constitution, tattered and shredded though it is. And it unequivocally states that only a natural born person may be the president. My only interests are ascertaining the truth and abiding by the laws of the land, the highest of which are enshrined in the Constitution. And unlike the Bill of Rights, this natural born requirement is no afterthought, but one of the original articles of the Constitution. So in contrast to the question of which intern the president is “entertaining” in the Oval Office, which is nobody’s business, the matter of a president’s Constitutional eligibility is everybody’s business, and Mr. Obama has a duty to all Americans to dispel any doubts they may have about his eligibility. If he’s not willing to answer this question and lay to rest the issue of his eligibility once and for all, then he really shouldn’t have been running for the high profile office of president in the first place.
Evidence in Favor of Mr. Obama’s Eligibility
A number of left-leaning web sites have published images of Mr. Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, which I repeat, is not the same thing as a Birth Certificate, so it’s not very substantial evidence in Mr. Obama’s favor. However, I did run across an image of a newspaper clipping announcing Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Newspaper clipping from The Sunday Advertiser, dated August 12, 1961, announcing Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii
I accept this image at face value and regard it as the strongest evidence in favor of Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii. However, I examined the larger portion of the newspaper page in highly magnified detail and could not verify that the above clipping was actually excerpted from the larger portion which has the date on it. It would be valuable to have a better quality image of the larger portion of the newspaper page, with enough resolution to actually see the above clipping.
I’d also like to point out that many people, believing that the ends justifies the means, would not have the slightest reservations about fabricating evidence such as this. Consequently, every new piece of evidence, pro and con, introduced into this contentious issue needs to be authenticated. While I accept, for now, this evidence at face value, I will not be entirely satisfied with it until it is properly authenticated.
It’s highly doubtful to me that in 1961 Mr. Obama’s parents were planning ahead to the 2008 presidential election and “planted” this piece of evidence in order to reinforce their son’s eligibility for the office! However, his mother – being an American citizen – might naturally have wanted her son to also be an American citizen, and may have thought it proper to declare him as American-born even if he were born in Kenya.
So in addition to authenticating the newspaper clipping shown above, we must also investigate how the newspaper came to learn of the news of Mr. Obama’s birth. Was the news relayed to the paper by Mr. Obama’s parents, a relative or a family friend? Was the news telephoned to the paper? Was it reported to the paper by the state? Was it gleaned from state records by the paper? The source of the information and the timing of its delivery is more crucial than its actual publication in the paper.
Evidence Against Mr. Obama’s Eligibility
Although there is a single, solitary piece of evidence – the above newspaper announcement – in support of Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii, there are several pieces of evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Obams’s Own Reticence
First, Mr. Obama’s own reticence and seemingly dismissive attitude about this matter is troubling for two reasons. Either he lacks a birth certificate proving his natural born status in the U.S., in which case he is knowingly violating the Constitution and thumbing his nose at the rule of law before even taking office! Or, he possesses such a birth certificate but feels it’s “beneath” him to dignify these legitimate questions about his eligibility with a response, which would indicate imperiousness and a disturbing indifference toward the very people he claims to represent. A third possibility, raised by an article I read this morning, is that Mr. Obama is simply waiting for an opportune time to reveal his genuine birth certificate proving his birth in Hawaii in order to cause maximum embarrassment to those who have questioned his eligibility, which, if true, would be extremely childish and needlessly prolong this damaging uncertainty. I see no other possible explanations for Mr. Obama’s failure to present a genuine birth certificate, and none of these explanations are suggestive of the exemplary qualities we hope to see in a president.
Certification of Live Birth
When I first saw Mr. Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, which was posted on various web sites, I accepted it at face value and didn’t question its authenticity. I merely noted that it was not a birth certificate or a copy of one. For amusement, I examined my own birth certificate this morning (actually a photocopy of the original), and it looks nothing like the document Mr. Obama presented.
My birth certificate – issued just one year before Mr. Obama’s – is a fill-in-the-blank form, in which most of the fields were filled in with a typewriter, others were signed by hand, and still others were stamped with a rubber stamp. That’s what I would expect Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate to look like also. The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is merely a kind of affidavit, stating in effect, “Yes, we have an original birth certificate on file.” Well, then let’s see it.
Although I didn’t initially doubt the authenticity of the image posted by Mr. Obama, after reading this lengthy article this morning I took a closer look at the image of Mr. Obama’s COLB published online, and I have to say, I now doubt its authenticity. (I think the analysis described in the above article is at times nitpicky and makes a big deal about some minutiae, but I agree with its overall conclusion that the COLB image made public is a forgery.)
I’ve been working with digital images for more than two decades. In the mid-1980s my company was a pioneer in cosine-transform-based image compression, the fundamental algorithm underlying the JPEG standard, and participated in formulating the JPEG standard. So I have great familiarity with compressed photographic images (including scanned documents like Mr. Obama’s COLB). Over the years I’ve scanned hundreds of photographs, halftone images, diagrams and pages of text, and created hundreds of digital drawings and diagrams on the computer. So I have a keen appreciation for the differences between photographic images and computer-generated images (including computer-generated fonts).
Self promotion complete, take a look at these scanned images.
Mr. Obama’s COLB, compared to another Hawaii COLB and a state-issued automobile Certificate of Title
The image in the upper left corner is from the COLB image Mr. Obama made public; the one in the upper right corner is a scan of another COLB issued by the State of Hawaii; and the one on the bottom is a scan made by me of a state-issued automobile Certificate of Title. The upper right and bottom images look like authentic scanned images. Notice how the background features butt up right against the superimposed text, and how the text and background have the same intensity and sharpness. But look at the image in the upper left (click on the image for a higher resolution version). Granted, the entire image is sharper than the one on the right, but the text is noticeably sharper than the background, and there seems to be a white corona around the text. In stark contrast to the other two images, there is a visible separation between the background and the text.
When a high frequency edge, like that between the text and the background, is compressed, it does not produce a white corona around the text, like that seen in the upper left image. It produces a noisy aura around the text, which can be seen in the upper right image. In other words, the white corona seen around the text in the upper left image is not an artifact of image compression. I’m not sure what caused the white corona around the text, but my guess is that it’s indicative of some sort of image manipulation handiwork. The white corona may even have been deliberately added to help blend the text into the background. Perhaps overlaying sharp, computer-generated fonts onto the comparatively fuzzy background was too obviously phony.
In my opinion, the image in the upper left looks as though someone scanned a genuine COLB – perhaps a blank sheet containing only the background pattern and no text – and then used a computer to place the text onto the scanned image. Then, to partially “blend” the text into the background the image was heavily compressed. The noisy aura around the text in both COLB images above is indicative of a high degree of compression. By comparison, there is no such aura around the text on the scan of the automobile title because it was not as highly compressed. In addition, the scan of the automobile title, which appears to be the same physical size as, and a moderately more complex image than the COLB, resulted a file 92 MB in size, whereas the COLB is only 1.4 MB in size. Even reducing the scan resolution to 300 DPI from the 600 DPI I used would presumably have resulted in a 23 MB file, and that’s compressed with JPEG just like the COLB. So clearly, the 1.4 MB COLB image is highly compressed, which tends to greatly obscure important image details. My analysis of these images could be totally flawed, but in my opinion the image of Mr. Obama’s COLB has been doctored.
If true, then the issues take on a more sinister character, because not only would Mr. Obama be continuing to pursue a job for which he knows he is Constitutionally ineligible, but he would have forged a document in the furtherance of that goal.
Kenyan Citizenship
Mr. Obama’s own web site, Fight the Smears, says right at the bottom:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.
By his own admission, Mr. Obama was a citizen of Kenya until he reached the age of 21 years. I don’t think the authors of the Constitution intended to permit a person who was ever a foreign citizen to be president. After all, they made an explicit exception to accommodate the foreign citizens who resided in America at the time the Constitution was adopted. The rationale behind the natural born stipulation is to preclude confused loyalties to nations besides than the U.S. Thus, the spirit of the Constitution would seem to rule out anyone who was ever a citizen of another nation from being president.
Mr. Obama’s Grandmother
According to Philip J. Berg, whose lawsuit is pending before the Supreme Court, one of Mr. Obama’s own grandmothers has attested that she was present when Mr. Obama was born in a hospital in Kenya. As explained in this article:
But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama’s mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement.
The belated announcement of the birth, after coming to the U.S., would explain why the newspaper clipping shown above exists and appears to be authentic. Despite the birth being announced in the U.S., the fact would remain that Mr. Obama was born elsewhere.
Some might dismiss this objection by pointing out that Mr. Obama’s mother was an American citizen. However, according to this article, his mother was unqualified by virtue of her young age to confer U.S. citizenship upon her son if he were born outside the U.S. In other words, if he were born in Kenya he would not automatically be a U.S. citizen at birth, which would seem to be an essential element of the natural born stipulation.
Radio Show Calls Kenyan Ambassador
On November 6th, right after the election, a radio show host engaged in a stunt by calling the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, D.C. The purpose was to make light of the new relationship between America and Kenya (ensuing from Mr. Obama’s familial ties to that nation). After quite a bit of chit-chat with the Ambassador, the radio host eased into the question which appeared to be the primary objective of his telephone call:
[Radio host] Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
[Ambassador] Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
The radio hosts were actually taken aback by this tacit admission that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and sought to clarify it further with the Ambassador. At no time did the Ambassador seem confused about what he was saying or aware of the serious Constitutional implications his admission harbored for Mr. Obama. Later, one of the radio hosts had this to say:
[Radio host] Clark told WND he began researching stories about Obama’s birth before his call.
"For two weeks prior to the election, I had been reading on the air about this business of Obama needing to be disqualified because he is not a legal U.S. citizen and that he was born in Kenya and moved to Hawaii where he never properly naturalized," he said. "I always assumed if there was any truth in any of this, hillary [sic] would have found out and taken care of this issue a long time ago."
Clark continued, "Given the fact that I had read so much of this on the air, it was a natural question to play around a little bit and suggest as a joke that Obama was born in Kenya."
So what began as an amusing radio joke has taken on rather serious overtones.
The Year 2000 All Over Again?
In the year 2000 the Supreme Court improperly intervened in the presidential election that took place that year, and essentially appointed George W. Bush to the presidency. As a result, the next eight months of the new president’s ignominious administration were shrouded by illegitimacy. It was looking as though his administration would be a one-term failure. Then September 11 happened, completely erasing the stench of illegitimacy and sending the president’s approval rating soaring.
So what might occur over the next couple of months, with respect to Mr. Obama’s questionable eligibility?
Mr. Obama Does The Right Thing
One possible outcome, one that I’m quite skeptical will come to pass, is that Mr. Obama does the right thing and presents his original birth certificate, it’s authenticated by a document expert, and the issue is over and done with, all questions about his legitimacy satisfied. This would be the best possible outcome and will give Mr. Obama a legitimate foundation from which to govern.
I don’t expect this outcome for the simple reason that Mr. Obama could have effected it long ago but did not. There must be a reason why he did not. In addition, there’s reason to suspect that he or his aides attempted to deceive the public into believing that Mr. Obama possessed a birth certificate proving his eligibility. Again, that behavior suggests that he lacks an authentic birth certificate proving his eligibility.
Supreme Court Rules In Mr. Obama’s Favor
Another possibility is that Mr. Obama refuses to provide any more documentation proving his eligibility and the Supreme Court rules that he is eligible nevertheless, and is once again instrumental in placing a president in office. This outcome would produce the same air of illegitimacy as the “Do Nothing” outcome below, suffering Mr. Obama’s presidency with the same inauspicious start as that of his predecessor.
Supreme Court Rules Against Mr. Obama’s Eligibility
A third possible outcome is that Mr. Obama refuses to provide any more documentation proving his eligibility and the Supreme Court rules that he is ineligible. That would be a stunning and breathtaking decision which would throw the whole presidential election into uncharted waters. In that case, would the vice president-elect become the president? Would the runner up – Mr. McCain – become the president? Would the current president remain in office until a new election can be held? The chaos that would ensue in the event of this outcome makes me think it’s a highly unlikely one.
Do Nothing
The final possibility is that Mr. Obama refuses to provide any more documentation proving his eligibility, the Supreme Court declines to issue a ruling, and the so-called mainstream media ignores the whole issue or downplays it as a tempest in a teapot.
This outcome seems to possess the highest probability of coming to fruition. Steadfastly ignoring the issue has certainly been the approach of the mainstream media so far. That surprises me not in the least, because Mr. Obama was the clear selection of the elites who run the world, the very same people who own the mainstream media. Naturally, they’re not going to permit their own media companies to do anything to undermine their chosen functionary.
In addition, of the approximately eight lawsuits filed challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility, several have been summarily dismissed, including the one filed by Philip Berg, which he appealed. Disappointingly, the court which dismissed the case declared that a mere citizen has no standing from which to challenge the candidate’s eligibility. How ironic and sad it is that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people regards the people as impotent. This case also exposed a shortcoming in the Constitution, namely, by what procedure are we to vet a candidate’s eligibility or challenge it? I suppose it’s up to the Electoral College at this point unless the Supreme Court decides to intervene again. The uncertainty about how to address this issue may well make simply ignoring it the most attractive option.
If nothing is done and Mr. Obama is sworn in as the president, he will suffer under the same stigma of illegitimacy that Mr. Bush did, to a lesser degree since so few people are even aware that there is a question about Mr. Obama’s eligibility. Nevertheless, the people who are aware of the issue will not recognize Mr. Obama’s legitimacy, including myself. Such refusal to recognize his legitimacy is not borne of mean-spiritedness, but devotion to truth and the Constitution. Unless this legitimacy deficit is huge, I don’t think it will matter much to the new president, although it will represent one more nail in the coffin of our once great republic and give the people who withhold their approval yet another reason to seek to form their own communities separate from the U.S.
On the other hand, should this legitimacy question assume large proportions, it would not surprise me to see another engineered “crisis” to make the people cast aside their questions about Mr. Obama’s legitimacy and rally around their president.
Conclusion
I believe I’m spitting into the wind here, that my legitimate questions about Mr. Obama’s eligibility are unwelcome and futile. So why do I write eight pages of drivel exploring this question? I really can’t say. Perhaps deep in my mind I harbor a remote hope that America can find its way back onto the tracks.
I’m not trying to rain on anybody’s parade or cause anyone any grief, and I have absolutely nothing against Mr. Obama, but I believe he is ineligible to be the president, solely by virtue of his having been born in Kenya. At the same time I have little doubt that Mr. Obama will be sworn in as the next President of the United States. That occasion will represent not a triumph – of overcoming racial barriers, “hope,” “change,” or anything else – but another step away from the rule of law and toward this nation’s demise.
Questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility is not a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Actually, it’s the opposite. The question is a mountainous one which Mr. Obama’s elite masters and his adulating “change”-seeking supporters are attempting to turn into a molehill by either ignoring the issue or trivializing it.
Fundamentally the issue boils down to whether we, as a nation, are going to observe our own laws, especially our most sacred ones, or simply ignore them whenever they prove inconvenient. If the latter (which has certainly become a popular trend – think of the financial bailouts), then we might as well quit pretending that there are any laws or rules and begin making preparations for the aftermath of our nation’s denouement.
Update – 27 December 2008
As anticipated, the fix is in – it was so for the year leading up to the election – and the president-elect is almost certainly going to be sworn in as the next president. The elites who control the world, and most importantly, the media, have decreed it so, and so it shall be.
Nevertheless, we can at least amuse ourselves with the illegitimacy into which we’ve descended. Here’s (black) Pastor James David Manning demanding that Mr. Obama, “that long-legged mac daddy,” produce his “dog gone birth certificate.” It’s pretty amusing even though he’s serious.
Update – 03 January 2009
Despite my expectation that Mr. Obama will be sworn in as the president, eligible or not, a lot of people won’t let the question of his eligibility die. This site claims to have proof of his ineligibility. And the tabloid, Globe, has the question plastered all over the cover of its latest issue:
I hope people keep poking this hornet’s nest, even after the new decider takes office.
Another thing I’ve noticed, even at the “progressive” web sites I troll, is that Mr. Obama’s honeymoon appears to be over already, and he hasn’t even been sworn in! Even so-called progressives are smelling the stench of his recycling tired old corporatist elitists to staff his administration. And look who endorses Mr. Obama: Karl Rove and Robert Mugabe! Talk about your recommendations from hell. The people who supported Mr. Obama want to remain optimistic, but it’s getting more and more difficult for them if they honestly acknowledge what their eyes and ears are telling them. Nevertheless, there remains a diehard bunch of “believers” who will probably never relinquish their faith in their savior.
Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the guy. I couldn’t care less that he’s half black or a Democrat or a Muslim or whatever. What I care about is the Constitution and that we abide by it. I’m also bothered by the irrational faith of his supporters in his ability or willingness to “change” anything. There’s little a single person can do even if he’s of a mind to do something. Our political system is run by money and that hasn’t changed with the election of the latest messiah. His principal donors are the very same wealthy entities that have been funding politicians’ campaigns for a long time. How can any rational person really expect “change”? Yet they do.
The messiah has made vague promises to create three million jobs and provide health care to all, but he hasn’t offered any specifics about how he’s going to accomplish this, or how he’s going to pay for it. First he promised two million jobs, then two and a half million, now three million. Do I hear three and a half million? Where’s he going to “create” these jobs? In the automobile industry? The home building industry? The financial sector? Retail? And how is he going to “create” these jobs? By pulling them out of his pocket?
The U.S. is already beyond broke. And what’s worse, we’ve shipped our wealth-creating apparatus, industry, abroad. That has, in fact, been our chief “export” during the last two or three decades, and the recipients of our erstwhile economic golden goose have eagerly accepted our foolishly squandered largesse. Now we find ourselves worse than broke and with no means to pay back what we owe right now, let alone pay for all these mythical promises of jobs and health care. But never try to shove facts in between a true believer and their idol.
Ted said,
November 29, 2008 at 10:35 am
On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).
smrstrauss said,
November 29, 2008 at 10:58 am
Let us try to put this into perspective. If Obama was born in Hawaii, as he was, his original birth certificate and his hospital birth certificate will show you nothing more than the fact which we already know, which is that he was born in Hawaii.
To show those documents on line, however, allows anyone who claims to be able to find fraudulent documents to claim that the posted documents are frauds. And, it allows the right-wing bloggers, and only the right wing bloggers, to say “look, we have so much power that we forced the president elect to post his hospital birth record.”
And, we do not even know that the original document or documents continues to exist in paper form. There is something in the files, but it may be in the form of microfilm or have been digitized already — to save space, as has been the case with many old records. A copy of a microfilm or an already digitized document cannot be shown on line without many people claiming that it is a fraud, due to the likely poor quality of the image.
And, there has been some discussion over the possibility that Hawaii might not even release the original records if he asks for them. Some postings say that they do not do that, even when requested. That they only release the certified live birth document that they have already released. They would do it for a court order, of course, but maybe not release it to Obama, even if requested. (I do not know whether this is true, but it may be the case, and why – if only right-wing bloggers are asking – should Obama even try to find out? We do not know that he know that even right-wing bloggers are asking to see the original records.)
So, what is wrong about the certification of live birth? What makes you believe that it is a fraud? Are you convinced that the officials in Hawaii are lying? If so, why — they are not Democrats? They were appointed by a Republican governor. And to lie in this case subjects them to arrest for fraud if what they say were ever shown not to be true. They wouldn’t do it.
Obama has shown the only official document that proves his birth in Hawaii (Yes, the state record is the official document. Hospital records are not official and cannot be used in many cases. They are not accepted for example by the state department in getting a passport.)
The other side claims crazy things like his mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot and there are no photos of her in Kenya. Moreover, they claim that the only reason that there are no official records of Obama’s mother being in Kenya in 1961 is that the Kenyan government is part of the conspiracy. This could (very unlikely but COULD) be true, but there is no confirmation of it.
Relax. Only if a court asks to see the Obama documents will there be an issue. If so, he has the documents and can show them, and the court is the ideal place to show them — not on line where anyone can and will claim that they are forged.
Now, turning from the Kenya issue, some ask about what if he lost his citizenship due to dual nationality in Indonesia and travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.
There are three approaches to the not-eligible-despite-being-born-in-Hawaii theory:
(1) Obama allegedly lost his US citizenship due to dual nationality with Indonesia, when he went there when his mother re-married and when he attended Indonesian schools.
(2) Obama allegedly lost his US citizenship due to allegedly having traveled on a foreign passport (an Indonesian passport).
(3) Obama allegedly is not a natural-born US citizen due to the combination of his having dual nationality at birth because of his father’s being a Kenyan (at the time a British subject since Kenya was a colony at the time).
Taking these up in order.
As to (1) there have been several Supreme Court rulings on this, with the decision being in all cases that a child cannot lose his US citizenship due to having the combination of dual nationality and his parents renouncing his US citizenship when he was a child. The court ruled that only when a person becomes an adult can she or he themselves relinquish US citizenship, and they cannot do this by accident.
You will see the proof of this at:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
In particular look at the Elg case:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called “Bancroft Treaties” enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.
The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg’s parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.
Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.
As to (2). It turns out that this is based on a completely mistaken premise. The US has no policy that would strip someone of US citizenship due to she or he traveling on a foreign passport. This is simply not mentioned in the State Department’s advice on the matter. See:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
In addition to travel on a foreign passport not being a reason that one can lose US citizenship, the State Department stress that it is difficult to lose citizenship by accident. This is because its standard for loss of citizenship requires someone to take an active role in relinquishing citizenship. In its words, “with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” The State Department guidelines read:
“…the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”
As to (3): This is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth. Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.
Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.
This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA. The issue of jurisdiction is unclear. It is unlikely to mean what Donofrio says, which was that Obama at the time of his birth was under the “jurisdiction” of Kenya or Britain.
More likely, jurisdiction means only that Obama was not born in a foreign embassy or consulate, where he would be under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
To be sure, he had dual nationality, but the constitution does not rule out people who have dual nationality from being president. If it had intended to do so, it would have.
So, the Donofrio theory is unlikely to get the votes of the strict constructionists on the court, and the theory is certainly not likely to get the votes of the liberals or the swing votes. In other words, it is a very very remote possibility. I’d say one in a 100 that there are four votes to consider the issue. We will find out on Dec. 6 or perhaps a couple of days later, since Dec. 5 is a Friday.
daveeriqat said,
November 29, 2008 at 11:40 am
smrstrauss,
I thought I explained rather precisely why I think Mr. Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is fraudulent.
You seem to be saying that we should just take his word for it. Unfortunately, I disagree. This is not a criminal case in which the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (as if!). He is vying for the highest office in the land. If there’s any doubt as to his eligibility then the burden of proof is on him!
We will see what happens. I’ll stick to my prediction that he will be sworn in as the president, and the powers-that-be will attempt to sweep the whole issue under the rug.
Dave
USWeapon said,
November 30, 2008 at 2:13 am
Very interesting commentary. Some I agree with and some I don’t, but all interesting none-the-less. I hope you will come check out my blog. We are currently dissecting the Libertarian Party platform and discussing its pros and cons. We have also had some vigorous debates on gay rights and gay marriage. I would value your thoughts and hope that I see you posting some comments on there. I intend to read more of your blog and add you the my blogroll once I have done so. My site is:
http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com
smrstrauss said,
November 30, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Re: I thought I explained rather precisely why I think Mr. Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is fraudulent.
First, the officials in Hawaii were shown scanned copies of the document that Obama posted, and they confirmed that they were good documents. Then, they confirmed that they had sent a COLB to Obama. Then, they said that the had looked into the files and found evidence that the certification of live birth, which says on it three times that Obama was born in Hawaii, is accurate.
(There is a crazy theory that they looked into the files, saw a birth certificate from Kenya and merely said that they saw a birth certificate. This is not true because Hawaii has never issued a certification of live birth that says on it “born in Honolulu” when that person was born somewhere else than Honolulu. And, of course, if they had merely said “a birth certificate exists” when it gave the impression that a document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii exists, they would be intentionally misleading. If it were proven not to be true, they could be arrested for fraud, and at the least would never be appointed to work for a Republican administration again, as they do now.)
This fellow puts it better than I can:
A posting from Andrew Walden, publisher of the Hawaii Free Press, a right-wing blog based in Hawaii.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx
Barack Obama: Born in Hawai`i
by Andrew Walden
|
It is time to focus on REAL issues, not imaginary ones.
A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense, which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama’s upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama’s numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.
Obama’s birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama’s birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement.
End Quote
As for your prediction that the issue will be “swept under the table,” we agree that after Dec. 15 when the electors vote, there will be no issue at all. That does not mean that it was “swept under the table.” It means that there is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya and plenty of evidence that he was born in Hawaii, and that the theories that he somehow lost his citizenship do not impress the Supreme Court.
Get over it.
daveeriqat said,
November 30, 2008 at 1:19 pm
smrstrauss,
Answer me one thing: who did you vote for?
Dave
smrstrauss said,
November 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hey Dave:
Do you only want to discuss this issue with certified conservatives? That would be pretty dull, wouldn’t it? And how would it lead to truth, if everyone said the same thing?
Please reply to the facts: (1) The certification of live birth documents issued by Hawaii are official and have been confirmed by officials in Hawaii; (2) The idea that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya in the ninth month of pregnancy when you had to get a Yellow Fever shot is extremely far-fetched.
daveeriqat said,
November 30, 2008 at 3:16 pm
smrstrauss,
I gather from your response that you voted for Obama. My reason for asking was due to your strident defense of the candidate. My question was a reasonable one because it reveals one’s bias.
As for myself, I feel I am unbiased. First of all, I am not, as you imply, a conservative. I am a free thinker with no fealty to any dogma or party. I’m not registered with any party. I voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. In the case of the recent election I did not vote – I have not voted since voting for Clinton in 1992. The fact that I did not vote for any candidate makes me, in my opinion, more impartial than people who did vote.
I appreciate your arguments.
Dave
smrstrauss said,
November 30, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I also am registered as an independent. I am truly from an independent family. My father voted for Eisenhower twice, my mother for Stevenson twice. My father voted for Nixon once, my mother for Kennedy in the same election. I voted for Ford over Carter.
Background and political leanings have nothing to do with a discussion of facts.
The issue here is not which party is better or which candidate is better, but whether Obama was born in Kenya or in Hawaii, or whether he lost his citizenship due to dual nationality, or finally whether dual nationality removes his eligibility to be president at all.
So far we have just discussed the Hawaii/Kenya side of this, which seems pretty clear – official documents for the born in Hawaii side, speculation and the Kenyan grandmother (who may not have understood what she was asked) for the Kenya side.
Bill Lewandowski said,
December 1, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Dave,
As someone who believes the constitution should be revised to allow a non natural born citized to be eligible to become President of the United States (under certain guidelines), I find it intriguing that Obama would not go the extra mile to put people’s concerns to rest.
Obama is a bit on the elitiest/aloof side (and I think that is his character, and not totally a negative trait in the business of politics), and not one to respond to every accusation people throw at him. So it is possible he is cutting off the conversation because he thinks it is silly. However, this dismissive attitude also fuels the fires of speculation that indeed a mother would very plausibly go thru extra efforts to record her son as born in the USA.
So I am unconvinced either way, and it is exactly because of that inability to find proof as to the facts of the matter that the controversy will grow until the public is satisfied.
We shall see…but if I was Obama and I knew the facts and the facts supported my presidency, I’d get the documents out on the table pronto. However, if I wasn’t positive of the circumstances or perhaps thought my mother had done some manipulations, I’d keep my mouth shut and hope it all fades away.
Time will tell…(but what a great opportunity for some professional sleuths to make a name for themselves…).
Bill
daveeriqat said,
December 1, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I quite agree with you Bill. Although I’m not sure about revising the Constitution, since I don’t see any necessity for that.
Dave
smrstrauss said,
December 3, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Re: “So I am unconvinced either way.”
Why are you unconvinced? There is an official document from Hawaii saying Obama was born in Hawaii. It was not forged. The facts of the document were subsequently confirmed by the officials in Hawaii who said that they looked into the files and found a birth certificate. That did not mean a Kenyan birth certificate, for if they had said only that they had found a Kenyan birth certificate when the document said “born in Hawaii,” they would be deliberately misleading. Why would they do that? If it were found out that they had mislead or lied, they could be charged with fraud.
Obama was born in Hawaii.
SCOTT ALLEN HUMPHREY said,
December 3, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Wow. Amazing. But I agree that, if it was me, and there was this doubt about my eligebillity to serve as president, And me, being the conscientious type that I am, I would be immediately forthcomming to the right sources,WITH ANY AND ALL NECESSARY LEGAL DOCUMENTATION to put any and all doubt to rest. Now that is what a conscietious individual would do. To have contempt for the suspission’s, and just ignore them, is not consistant with “CHANGE YOU CAN BELEIVE IN”.
After the last 8 (16) years, now, here we go again with a candidate elected on a platform of genuing change, and what do we actually have, a unique situation creating doubt, even before his term has begun and what do we get, contempt, and silence.
SMRSTRAUSS, I hear what you say above. but the doubt is still there. I would like to see this situation publically resolved to a satisfactory degree. It doesent help guys like me when guys like you state that the doubt has no merit. If the doubt has in fact been satifactorily resolved legally, that fact has not been made public common knowledge. The public oppinion is what counts, not what a few officials may know.
Heres why my brother. We are about at a point in this country, where a sufficient number of citizens are just about fed up with being the recepieint’s of government contempt which may lead to another FT Sumpter. Are you picking up what im setting down in front of you sir? And I mean no personal disrespect toward you.
daveeriqat said,
December 4, 2008 at 5:51 am
Good comment, Scott! And I agree that the issue is that Obama has a duty to dispel any and all doubts about his eligibility. There’s too much secrecy in government as it is. If he really wants to offer change, how about some in that area?
Dave
SCOTT ALLEN HUMPHREY said,
December 4, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Dave, here is a breaking story out of the ILLINOIS STATE JOURNEL REGISTER, THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER OF SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS. As you know, this is where it all began for OBAMA
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT FIND THIS INTERRESTING
By DOUG FINKE
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Dec 04, 2008 @ 04:56 PM
Last update Dec 04, 2008 @ 05:06 PM
——————————————————————————–
Nine secretary of state employees are facing suspensions of three or more days for improperly looking up President-elect Barack Obama’s driving record in Illinois, even after being warned not to.
The employees, all of whom work in Secretary of State Jesse White’s Drivers Services Department, were not authorized to look up Obama’s driving record, said spokeswoman Penelope Campbell. All of the searches were made since November 5, the day after the election.
“Access to the records is to be utilized within the scope of a person’s employment,” Campbell said. “They knew that within the scope of their employment, they had no reason to look up his records.”
White’s office called in the Secret Service to help with the investigation after learning that the employees looked at the records.
Campbell would not identify the employees involved, citing the office’s confidentiality policy regarding personnel decisions. She would not elaborate on the suspensions, saying only that the minimum time off without pay will be three days.
Campbell said White had issued a memo “prior to some of these incidents” instructing staff not to look up Obama’s driving record.
Read more in tomorrow’s State Journal-Register.
daveeriqat said,
December 5, 2008 at 5:23 am
Scott,
Thanks for the info, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to the issue at hand. Of course, it’s consistent with the sequestration of virtually all other records pertaining to “O.”
Jeez, you’d think he was trying to hide something…
Dave
SylviaSchau said,
December 6, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Excellent article about our probable next president.
So Hawaii maintains they have a proper record of this individual’s birth. Oh yes, let’s take their word for it–after all, when have government officials ever been known to conceal the facts?
Well, forgive me for being a doubting Thomas, but as they say in Missouri, show me! Something is rotten in Hawaii, methinks.
daveeriqat said,
December 7, 2008 at 6:46 am
SylviaSchau,
I agree: just show us. Is that asking so much. Instead he has lawyered up, apparently to prevent any such disclosure. Hello?! Does he have any idea how suspicious that appears to us peons?
Dave
SCOTT ALLEN HUMPHREY said,
December 7, 2008 at 11:37 am
Well, there is some of that (doubtfull) public oppinion I was refering to above.
EXCUSE ME!! Can somebody point me to where FT SUMPTER IS?
daveeriqat said,
December 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Scott,
This case could become some sort of flash point, not unlike the 2000 election and the “hanging chads” fiasco.
On the one hand, if the Supreme Court decides he’s ineligible – frankly, I don’t see how it has the authority to decide either way, but that’s another matter – and “O” is not allowed to become the president, then I would not be surprised to see widespread rioting, ala the Rodney King riots. Blacks might see the disqualification of “O” as yet another attempt to suppress them. (By the way, I thought Rodney King’s attackers were unjustly acquitted, but I also condemned the rioting that followed.)
On the other hand, if he becomes president with so much doubt in the minds of Americans, he won’t be seen as legitimate. Moreover, it might be just the thing to push some people over the edge to seek secession or other such things.
I think the Supreme Court will pursue the path that will produce the least turmoil, regardless of the Constitution, which would be to ignore the whole issue or rule him eligible without any proof.
Dave
Herb said,
December 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Dave:
Please let me start with what I think I know:
The law defines just two types of persons:
a). A “natural” (born) person and
b). A “legal” person.
The first is a living human being, while the second is typically a corporation.
From this, it is obvious that the framers of the Constitution wanted to unambiguously exclude corporations from holding the Presidency! It seems to me that if being a “natural born person” is the extent of the legal requirement to legally hold the Presidency goes, then even Governor Schwazenegger qualifies.
So, is there is an American law stating that the “natural born person” must be born to American parents or within an American state or territory to be considered a U.S. Citizen? That would be a different kettle of fish.
Please tell me what’s wrong with my understanding and provide references that can illuminate my thinking.
Thanks – Herb
daveeriqat said,
December 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Herb,
Yours is a different understanding than mine. My understanding is that a natural born person is simply one born within the territorial limits of the United States, as opposed to a naturalized citizen. Beyond that I cannot elaborate further, as I’m no expert on the Constitution.
However, I searched the Constitution and I can find no mention of “corporations” or “legal persons.” So perhaps you’re overthinking it; maybe it’s as simple as my intuitive understanding.
Dave
SCOTT ALLEN HUMPHREY said,
December 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Dave, are you following the political crisis here in Springfield Illinois?
The worst (my oppinion) is the solicitation, by oyr current governor, to the highest bidder, to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat. But there is also extortion of the Chicago tribune, and then, your run of the nill pay to play.
The evidence Fitzgerald has is outstanding.
It seems logical this governor will tender his resignation in the comming days. His administration has been laden with corruption, allegations of corruption etc.
Here in Spfld, people are practiclly dancing in the streets. I myself, see no cause for celibration. The governor prior to this one is now sitting in an Indiana federal prison for his gubonortorial corruption.
The State of Illinois is about to fiscally colapse, and that is no understatement.
It’s damm serious and nothing to celibrate but there can be releif that this corruption crime spree has been stopped.
daveeriqat said,
December 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Yeah, I have heard about it. It just goes to show you that you can’t judge a book by its cover. The Gov looks like a nice schoolboy. Who knew?
I do find it interesting that the Gov was arrested right after he proposed ceasing doing business with BofA over the Republic Window fiasco. Shades of Elliot Spitzer …
I can’t help but think that the way politicians are kept in line is that the intelligence agencies dig up dirt on all of them and trot it out if the politicians don’t follow the playbook.
Dave
Michael said,
December 10, 2008 at 12:26 am
Hi, Dave;
Agence France Presse (AFP) ran an article about this today. Here is an excerpt:
“The US constitution provides the framework for the law on who is a citizen, saying in the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
“Laws passed since the constitution are more specific about who is a citizen at birth.
“They include anyone born inside the United States, a person born in a US possession if one parent is a citizen and lived in the United States for at least a year; and anyone born outside the United States to at least one US-citizen parent who has lived in the US for a minimum of five years.”
I grew up in San Antonio, Texas, which was (and is) a military town with 4 bases in the area. Most of my schoolmates were moved around, all over the world. Many of them were born in foreign lands where their fathers were stationed – either on military bases or even in local hospitals. No one ever asserted that they were anything other than natural born American citizens (although one had dual citizenship by virtue of having been born in Canada when his father was stationed there). Any of them could run for President today if they got the political support.
If Obama had to reapply for citizenship at any time, then this whole argument might carry weight. As it is, this is a distraction, and simply another crazy “Patriot legal theory.”
“Patriot legal theories” are concocted arguments, based upon speculation, usually without any reference to actual case law. My favorite was one circulated in the 1990’s to the effect that the use of a Federal ZIP code on your mail somehow mysteriously invoked Federal jurisdiction over your property. No proponent of that theory ever cited a single statute, administrative ruling or court case to back it up. So why did thousands of people believe this stuff? Beats me.
I didn’t vote in the election, because I, like you, don’t think it matters who is president. But I won’t waste time with silly theories, and neither should you.
Cheers!
daveeriqat said,
December 10, 2008 at 6:02 am
Michael,
Thanks for you input, but I don’t see how the 14th Amendment applies. It takes away stature from the states, making state citizens also U.S. citizens. It says nothing about people born elsewhere being “natural born” citizens.
As to the claim that “Laws passed since the constitution are more specific about who is a citizen at birth,” well, laws do not trump the Constitution. Only Constitutional amendments can alter the provisions in the Constitution.
Dave