What's Obama's Birther Legal Bill?

Activists charge that Obama has spent millions to silence them in court. Not exactly, say the government’s lawyers.

Tue Jan. 26, 2010 4:00 AM PST

Is President Barack Obama spending millions of dollars to hide the truth about his citizenship?

During Obama's 2008 run for the White House, his campaign and a host of other credible sources repeatedly debunked the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was thus ineligible to serve as president. But this failed to quell the "birther" movement, whose acolytes have filed more than 60 civil lawsuits challenging the president's citizenship. None of these suits have gone anywhere in court. But birthers say that's because Obama has unleashed a phalanx of powerful lawyers to silence them—spending $1.7 million in the process, according to WorldNetDaily (WND), an enthusiastic online promoter of the birthers' cause.

Given the sheer number of cases, it seems plausible that the president and the government may have been forced to devote real resources to their defense. But in fact the opposite may be true: The birthers' own copious legal bungling could wind up costing them more than Obama will have to spend defending himself.

The birthers have peppered dozens of state and federal courts around the country with legal challenges—against the president and other government officials and organizations who had some role in allowing Obama's name to be placed on the ballot, including the Federal Election Commission, various state election officials, and the US Supreme Court. Some of the suits, particularly those filed by the movement's leading lady, California lawyer/dentist Orly Taitz, have been headlined by members of the military claiming they've been wrongfully made to serve in foreign wars by an illegitimate commander in chief. Most recently, birther attorneys have represented car dealers who charge that Obama is a phony president who lacked the authority to order a restructuring of Chrysler that they say cost them their businesses.

WorldNetDaily has noted that FEC filings show that Obama's presidential campaign has paid out more than $1.7 million since the election to the law firm of Perkins Coie. Until recently, that firm was home to Obama's campaign lawyer, and now White House counsel, Robert Bauer—the very same DC lawyer, says WND, who has defended Obama in many of the birther lawsuits. Ergo, WND concluded, Obama must be devoting that entire $1.7 million to crushing birthers in court. This is a ridiculous claim: Even after an election is over a presidential campaign has plenty of need for lawyers as it winds down operations and meets campaign finance law requirements.

But WND's editors believe they have a smoking gun in a letter Bauer sent on April 3 to John David Hemenway, a DC lawyer representing retired Air Force Colonel Gregory Hollister in a suit against "Barry Soetoro…de facto President in posse." (Some birthers claim Obama is actually an Indonesian citizen who shares his last name with his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.)

The lawsuit claims that Hollister may be unable to perform his duty to uphold the Constitution if Obama called him out of retirement and ordered him to war, because Obama isn't a natural-born citizen. A US District Court judge dismissed the "frivolous" case and reprimanded the 83-year-old lawyer for filing it. Nonetheless, Hemenway appealed, prompting Bauer to send him a letter warning that Obama would seek sanctions if he pursued the matter.

WND and many of its readers apparently believe this letter proves that Obama has teams of expensive lawyers working round the clock to stomp out the suits and intimidate the underdog plaintiffs and their attorneys. The White House never responded to WND's questions about the legal fees, and Bauer didn't respond to Mother Jones. But the birthers' lawsuits don't exactly seem to be requiring Obama's lawyers—government or private—to burn the midnight oil.

Roger West, an assistant US attorney in the central district of California, represented the government in a lawsuit brought by Taitz on behalf of perennial presidential candidate Alan Keyes, asking the court to require that Obama prove he is a natural-born citizen. The case has dragged on for more than a year, mostly because Taitz, a graduate of an online, unaccredited law school, failed to serve the defendants. Judge David O. Carter dismissed the suit in October for a host of reasons, but Taitz has appealed. Yet West says that far from bleeding his office, Taitz and her co-counsel Gary Kreep have assembled such a weak case that he hasn't had to spend much time on it. "I filed one motion that didn't take too long, we've had two hearings and that's it," he says. "It's not like we've devoted some sort of task force to this."

Army Major Rebecca Ausprung handled two of the birther cases against the Department of the Army that disputed Obama's authority as commander in chief to order soldiers to war. Ausprung says she spent a few hours drafting motions and doing research, and she did have to make three short trips to Georgia from Arlington, Virginia. She prevailed in both cases. "The monetary cost to the government in defending these two cases was extremely minimal," she says.

Or consider a case filed by one of the most prolific birther litigants, Philip J. Berg, that went all the way up to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In November the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Berg to pay the legal costs for the defendants, which included the Federal Election Commission. Here was the government's big chance to recoup its millions. But when the FEC submitted its bill, the grand total came to $20.40. This doesn't include the cost of the time government lawyers spent writing briefs and appearing in court. Yet it's clear that as much of a nuisance as these suits are for the government, that's all they are: a nuisance.

In fact, the plaintiffs may be spending far more time and money on these cases than Obama or the government is, in part because of their failure to abide by basic court procedures. In one of the Georgia cases Ausprung handled, a federal judge sanctioned Taitz in October for $20,000 for, among other things, pursuing a case long after a judge had dismissed it and her own client had discharged her. Taitz has refused to pay the fine.

So far, judges have been remarkably tolerant of the birthers' shenanigans—despite being handed abundant opportunities to throw their petitions out of court. In one case, Taitz allegedly encouraged supporters to contact the judge by phone and mail to lobby for her cause—a glaring ethics violation that he chose to ignore. Another of her cases only went forward because the federal judge basically begged the defendants to let Taitz serve them—the first step in any lawsuit, but one that Taitz had neglected to take for about seven months. The judges' written opinions suggest that by giving the birthers' cases a full airing, they hope to put some of the most outrageous allegations to rest.

But not only have the birthers shown little gratitude to the judges who have indulged them, their court losses have also fueled the conspiracy theories that the judges had hoped to extinguish. Taitz accused US District Judge Clay Land of having improperly discussed one of her cases with Attorney General Eric Holder, and submitted a sworn eyewitness account describing a clandestine meeting in a Columbus, Georgia, coffee shop between the judge and a man with a "trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion"—whom the source naturally assumed to be the attorney general. On the day in question, however, Holder was making a public appearance 2,000 miles away in Los Angeles. Expect the birthers' theories to become even more far-fetched as their legal endeavors continue to fail.

Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. You can also follow her on twitter.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Obama and the USA

From where I am here in Canada I do not understand the USA. You people seem to doing everything possible to undermine your own country. Nobody works for the betterment of your country anymore. Obama is a Muslim. Obama is not an American. His Health Care bill stinks. You know what is the problem in your country. You people do no know what "words" mean. The Health care program is called "Socialist" Are you kidding me.
PLus you all claim to be "Christian" Are you joking. ?! If this is Christian behavior than I have never read the bible. Get going people . I travel a lot and I will tell you. Your country is getting behind and you do not know it.
Vote for people that are willing to do something for your country and are not only concerned about what they can get out of it.
Travel to other countries and look how they fix problems.
Your people are nice people but the way your Government people Govern is no Good and does not serve the country. Stop fighting and get on with with some real work to make your country better.I guess you are not going to do this. Give Obama a break.
SB

As an American, I agree with

As an American, I agree with most of what you're saying. Those who want to make the nation a better place are hindered by the loudmouth, know-nothings who want the nation to fail so that they can say 'I told you so!'

Thank you Sean Baines!!!!

Thank you Sean Baines!!!!

Sean Baines, you are wrong

Obama is not a 'muslim.' Islamic is a religion, just like christianity, just like wiccan. He was *born* (atheist, everyone is born atheist until they're converted against their will long before they're old enough to make a rational decision on their own, then his family converted him to Islam) then they converted to Christianity.

Besides, here in the USA, we have freedom of religion, so even if he *were* muslim, it wouldn't be a problem and he'd still be eligible for the presidency (in theory).

However, just like in the middle east there are radical islamists, here in the US we have radical catholics, which i suspect are the people making these erroneous claims.

Do you really think that Obama could have somehow slipped past all the government officials, to somehow gain the presidency if he were not a natural-born citizen?

Are you really that stupid?

Obama was born in Hawaii, 2 years after the American government conquered Hawaii and assimilated it as the 50th state.

Therefore, he's an American citizen.

Please re-read

He's not calling Obama a muslim.

He's using a rhetorical device, ticking off the baseless accusations that people have made about Obama.

Thank you for your cooperation.

No Person except a natural

No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united states, at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president of the united states.
Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens.
Obama Sr. was not an American citizen, thus Jr. is not a natural born citizen. Jr. was not around when the adoption of the constitution was to become the law of this land. There is a differnce in citizen and natural born for the requirement for such office. This is the facts. He is guilty of high crimes and should be prosecuted.

Re "Natural born citizens are

Re "Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are citizens."
Wrong.
Read the 14th amendment:
1. 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.

If you were born in the US, you are a citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

You are a Natural born

You are a Natural born citizen if one of your parents was, or if you were born in the United States.

So no.

American citizenship is not

American citizenship is not always determined by blood. A person born on american soil to foreign born parents can be considered a natural born citizen of this country via the 14th Amendment : Section 1. 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...

If you are born in the country, you are by definition a natural born citizen.

My Dad was born in Canada, I was born in Downtown Detroit. You saying that I can never be president? Would I be committing a crime by being rightfully elected by the people to serve them?

Also, any person born on foreign soil to parents who are either both US citizens, or at least one who is a Citizen, or at least one parent had lived in the US a minimum of 5 years prior to the birth, and at least 2 of those years where when the parent was older than 14, is considered a US citizen automatically.

Now my question to you is: if a child is born in a foreign country to an American soldier, would that child not be eligible to hold the office of president? What if one parent was not an "american" but the other one was a soldier? Is that child not a citizen? Many would think that unfair, to "punish" a child born to one who serves the country only because they were not born in the continental US.

Back to Obama. This birther movement is nonsense. It's actually pretty funny to read the articles which pop up now and then. It's obvious that the longer this theory is held on to, the less credible it becomes. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen of this country. So far no credible proof to the contrary has come forward, otherwise the movement would be more than a fringe right-wing conspiracy.

You need to move on and do something for the betterment of everyone who lives here. Not bicker over sour grapes that a Democrat is in charge of the white house. The Republicans will have their time again, it's cyclical process. Stop whining and move on.

Who really gives a rat's

Who really gives a rat's ass?? He's a thoughtful, progressive leader who deserves to be president, and he sure as hell deserves a lot more cooperation than he's getting. Most of his ideas are for the good of the vast majority of people in our country, and many go farther... to benefit people around the world.

Corporate shill

"He's a thoughtful, progressive leader who deserves to be president,"

Please. He's a lying racist that exploited the deaths of a million middle easterners so that you fools would elect him.

Then he sent more troops into afghanistan. Racist, race-baiting, corporate shill-loving fools.

Obama and birthers

Deserves a lot more cooperation?? For trying to take over everything in sight?? For all the bank and Wall Street bailouts??? You must be kidding...

This man could not manage a Dairy Queen successfully and he certainly IS NOT a great uniter. BS dictator "wannabee" is more like it.

Get your facts straight

Short term memory, huh? It was the Bush administration that did most of the bailing out.

From your post, I'd say you need to go into an anger management program. Obama is not substantially different from any other president in recent history. Everybody's treats the President as if he were an all-powerful king. We got rid of the king, remember? Our system has balanced branches, not too mention the powerful sway of special interests. The President sets the tone. That's about it.

Natural born is born on US

Natural born is born on US soil , thats territories and all states.

And isn't it odd that all

And isn't it odd that all your baseless accusations weren't picked up on by the legal system. Oh...oops...another conspiricy theory.

You have lost you ever-loving mind

Obamas mother was a citizen of the U.S.
If a child is born in the U.S. under our law they are a citizen, hense "anchor babies".
The only person guilty of high crimes here is you, and your crime is stupidity.

So the Japanese won?

"2 years after the American government conquered Hawaii and assimilated it as the 50th state."

You don't even know where to start, you would think the words 'Pearl Harbor' and the date 'Dec 7, 1941' would have stuck or something but apparently not.

Hawaii did not become a state

Hawaii did not become a state until 1960. From 1898? it was a U.S.Territory.

Statehood

Hawaii became a state (#50) in 1959. I was there at the time. Big party!

Obama's legal defense against the birthers

To those who think these lawsuits are frivilous, I say, "have him release all the school records he has sealed from the public.'" Editor of the Harvard Law Review and nothing published? All education records sealed?

I'm sorry, but he brought this on himself.

Troublemakers !

I agree! We should support our President who has inherited terrible problems and hard times not of his making.

These people who want to unseat the President may be closet racists who don't care about the welfare of this country and just want to make trouble for the President. Probably, they are all frustrated Republicans who see all of this "noise" as a means of getting their party back in power in the next election.

I'm sure that all of the "birthers" know that if they were successful in their efforts, this would cause violence and race riots in this country, that already has so much pain and trouble to bear ---the war and the terrible recession with its unemployment.

The only thing the birthers do prove is that the democratic ideal of permitting citizens to freely address the courts is still alive and well.

It seems that "politics" is now product for the 24-hr. news media and the losing party immediately starts running for re-election 24 hours a day after their loss. The fire is stoked by media and those "stars" who sit on the sidelines and comment pro and con about the policies of government. At least the media doesn't give much time to the "birthers."

Birthers

This American is most certainly NOT a racist--something you call anyone who disagrees with you.

I vote and I'll be there on Nov. 2 to make certain Congress does not continue to support this Socialist.

Stephanie Mencimer, I'll give

Stephanie Mencimer, I'll give you a C+ for that article. There are a host of minor errors, but more important, you obviously didn't check with the single most important website that debunks the Birthers, Politijab .

If you had, you would have learned of the Birther Case Scorecard, and learned that Obama only hired personal attorneys in 3 of the 64 Birther lawsuits.

Even if the federal government lawyers were spending a lot of time on these cases (which you accurately reported, they aren't), that would result in no additional expense to the government. Both Roger West and Rebecca Ausprung receive the same salary no matter what cases they work on. Only if President Obama hires personal attorneys does the expense climb, and he hasn't had to hire personal attorneys to work on these cases since he took office.

You missed one other important point, too. Birthers have 3 main theories as to why he's ineligible, of which you mention only one -- that he may have been born in Kenya. Why didn't you mention the theory that he lost his citizenship when he was "adopted" in Indonesia? Why didn't you mention the theory that both your parents must be U.S. citizens for you to be a "natural born citizen"?

All the other MSM outlets that reported this story -- Washington Post, UPI, New York Magazine, Washington Independent, etc. -- contacted us at Politijab to get more accurate and complete information before writing their stories. Before you write about the Birthers again, give us a chance to educate you more fully.

To PJ Foggy

Not that it matters legally, but I'm incensed by the assertion that both parents must be US citizens before you are a "natural born citizen". As if being American has ever been like being a pedigreed dog or thoroughbred horse! Au contraire (or manybe I should use only English idioms?)! What are we if not a bit of a mongrel nation?
I am American, the father of my children is Spanish (from SPAIN!) and one child was born in Spain and one was born in England. We currently live in the states. Why wouldn't they be American? I can only feel the bigotry seeping from peoples' thought processes as they try to justify any other stance.
Realistically, I like to think of them (and myself and husband) as global citizens (as overused as that term may be), but there is no passport for that.
Do the birthers suggest a nouveau caste system where only people with "papers" documenting their American heritage back to some definite point in history lead and the rest of us file in behind, subservient, obedient and inferior?

Yes the Indonesian case

is the most interesting one. Because it isn't obviously bat shit crazy, has real documentation in play and relies on actual legal language and reasoning. In the end the case breaks down given the clear wording of the Nationality Act of 1940, but at least they make you work for it.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/12/nationality-act-of-1940-nipping-wi...

I tried to throw some cold water on this even before Obama got into office but I guess you can't keep a good Birfer down.

The Indonesian case

I have never read that Obama was LEGALLY adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. My children from a previous marriage used my second husband's name for a few years at school, but when they turned 18, or got driver's licenses, they resumed their birth names as we never got around to getting them legally adopted. Thus, they were not eligible for support when we divorced. Using a name doesn't make for a legal arrangement. Luckily, we are all friends and step-dad helped with support and is still their dad.

Do you have any information that Barack Obama was legally adopted by Soetoro? Even if he was, how would this change his citizenship? He was a minor. Usually there is some sort of rule that comes into play at legal age time. Choose citizenship or be granted dual citizenship under certain circumstances, which varies for each country.

Bottom line question is: What REALLY motivates these people? I don't think it's really their concern for the country; it has to be a mental illness. Oily Titz is so loony she's actually quite entertaining to listen to!

Immigration and National Act of 1952

"From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by -- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday:"

It wouldn't have mattered if Soetoro had adopted Obama with or without obtaining Indonesian naturalization, with or without Obama's consent, as long as Obama re-established a permanent residence in the US prior to 1986 he would retain his citizenship. And we know where Obama was in 1986, he was a community organizer in Chicago.

You could have a picture of child Obama wrapped in the Indonesia flag with his Indonesian passport in one hand kissing the hand of the President of Indonesia and it wouldn't matter for legal purposes, neither children nor their guardians can simply throw away their citizenship. Obama was born in Honolulu. By 1985 he was settled in Chicago. End of story. He was born and remains a citizen whatever happened or didn't happen in Indonesia.

WTF is wrong with you,

tagged as: 

WTF is wrong with you, Janet?

"Oily Titz"

Have you no pride, Woman? Do not degrade all women with your filth just because you don't agree with one person.

Yuck. Pathetic.

Peggy Foggy, please report to

Peggy Foggy, please report to http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ where you can get a real education on the facts we know regarding this issue.

If you are having a problem

If you are having a problem understanding the arguments linked to in the comment preceding, it's not you. The conclusions don't follow from the citations and the arguments are not valid. I spent hours trying to follow the argument scattered over several hyperlinked pages and finally figured out that there is no "there" there. Results here at:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/green-flags-in-hawaii/

and the following article: Butterdezillion strikes back.

Birthers

Unseal those records.

Here's a cheap and easy answer....

There are just a couple of requirements for POTUS per our constitution... age 35 and natural born citizen. You require no other background, qualification, or abilities.

When I applied for my driver's license I had to show proof of age (16, which was a million years ago) and proof of residence in that state.

Seems all this would go away if Obama would just show us his proof of age and birthplace. How tough is that?

If documented proof is required for a driver's license, shouldn't we expect the same for the highest office in the land?

I am not one who believes one way or the other... but the law is the law and it seems every elected official should prove they meet the minimum legal requirements for the office... whether it be dog catcher or POTUS.

The better question to ask is why did Obama/Whitehouse/government spend a nickel on attorneys to stonewall the request for proof? Just show the proof and be done with this.

You think he hasn't?

"Seems all this would go away if Obama would just show us his proof of age and birthplace. How tough is that?"

You think he hasn't?

It's these rabid retards who refuse to accept the answer.

They'd rather believe that Obama sidestepped every form, every test and somehow swindled everyone in the country in the process and that somehow, SOMEHOW he stole the US presidency.

These people refuse to accept the fact that doddering old McCain lost, and the truth is, it doesn't matter. For every elected official there are 2 dozen appointed employees who never, ever lose their job come the next election cycle.

The office of the president is nothing more than a marionette box. The bankers own the US government thanks to the Federal Reserve, a private company that sits outside of US law. The Federal Reserve CAUSES recessions and depressions on a whim. Look at the virtual handful of obscenely wealthy people who got that much richer under the Bush presidency.

Then when the Federal Reserve faces an audit... they tighten the money supply and cause a recession, so the US government has to hop from one foot to the next to fix it.

Every person in the country who wanted to work could work if they legalized hemp for commercial farming, but OH NO then the DEA wouldn't be able to stuff it's prisons with minorities over possession of a plant that CANNOT BE OVERDOSED ON. Unlike alcohol.

Because it's not a war on (some) drugs, it's a war on minorities to replace outlawed slave labor with prison labor. Read tinyurl.com/1mn
"Well, there it was, you didn't have to look another foot as you went from state to state right on the floor of the state legislature. And so what was the genesis for the early state marijuana laws in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern areas of this country? It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it."

Birthers

Why are all his school records sealed? Where are the papers he wrote as editor of the Harvard Law Review? These people have the right to know the answers.

What? You sound loonier than those you criticize!

Hey Joe Dirt (AKA: Phil E. Drifter):

I realize this is an old thread, but just in case you come back, I have a few things to say in response to your comment above.

For one, your ranting is even further out in left field than those you refer to as "rabid retards who refuse to accept the answer".

Come on:

"The office of the president is nothing more than a marionette box...",

"Every person in the country who wanted to work could work if they legalized hemp for commercial farming. . ."

"Because it's not a war on (some) drugs, it's a war on minorities to replace outlawed slave labor with prison labor. . ."

You might want to consider putting the drugs down and trying to get a grip--they appear to be having a substantial effect on your thinking.

While I would agree that some of the claims against Obama are frivolous at best, you sound like a paranoid throwback to the 60's, or better yet, some druggie whose only political knowledge or involvement is limited to whatever concocted theories some other (perhaps slightly more educated) paranoid druggies have devised to further their own paranoid druggie agendas and to appear legitimate to gullible followers seeking condonation and endorsement for their drug use.

You should grow up and learn to make intelligible and valid arguments for yourself before posting your opinions. Furthermore, making claims such as your erroneous statement that marijuana is a plant that cannot be overdosed on could have seriously dire consequences on impressionable young minds.

On what valid data are you basing that assertion? I could be here writing all week if I were to list all of the reasons why that is an utterly asinine statement, but since this is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion, let me just offer this food for thought:

The effects and definition of an overdose are not limited to death, but include several serious physical and mental symptoms--some of which are permanent--that are harmful to not only the person who has overdosed, but potentially to anybody the individual comes in contact with as well. I am aware of the popular assertion of legalization proponents that states that it would take such enormous amounts of THC to cause an overdose it is essentially impossible, but this statement is rendered mute when you consider the fact that mixing THC (which by the way, contains over 400 chemicals) with other drugs can exaggerate its effects, and that it is not uncommon for marijuana smokers to mix their weed smoking with other drug and alcohol use. Furthermore, what about the countless deaths (and other crimes) occurring every day at the hands of people who are either high, trying to get high, or whose mental faculties have been permanently damaged due to previous or continued use? What about the countless "pseudo deaths" that occur when people can no longer rise to their inherent potential because of the effects that marijuana smoking has had on their lives. Loss of motivation, judgment, and healthy inhibitions are but a few of the many documented effects routinely witnessed in chronic marijuana users, and the amount required to produce such effects are minimal.

I would argue that these and other dire consequences of illegal drug use (including marijuana) are significantly farther reaching than would be any benefits garnered from legalizing marijuana.

Taking a stand against racism is a legitimate and commendable aspiration; there are many far more effective avenues of doing so, however, then by touting racial conspiracy theories supposedly perpetrated by our government, or by furthering the rampant physical and moral degradation of our society by legalizing drug use.

Proof has been shown

Common Sense: Obama has shown proof, he has presented his Hawaiian birth certificate, the one that is accepted by ALL Federal and State agencies as proof of birth and Citizenship in Hawaii, additionally Officials from the Sate of Hawaii have made sworn affidavits that his birth record is accurate and he was born in Hawaii.

The problem is that the "birthers" won't accept it!

Nine large images of Certificate

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

These are high resolution JPGs, from 1.2 to 2.2 mb in size showing every detail of the Certificate of Live Birth including raised seal, for example this one shows the seal and official stamp:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

Other than pin it to his coat I am not sure what Obama could do that he already hasn't.

Thanks

Good references... appreciate someone that can support their claims. So... why does the rumor persist?

Why does the rumor persist?

Several possible reasons:

1. There are a few folks pushing the issue for whatever reason. Charles Kerchner, for example, takes out half-page ads in the Washington Times making arguments based on false information. WorldNetDaily, a web site with a large readership, publishes "birther" material as if it were real news.

2. Some folks are simply in denial that a black man could be president, and cling to any excuse to say it's not so.

3. Some folks are simply unable to think rationally.

Largely, I think, it persists because folks have bogus facts (like, Obama refuses to show his birth certificate, or anyone can get a birth certificate from Hawaii, or the Constitution requires two citizen parents. Not everyone is a natural born fact checker.

Birthers

He could unseal all his school records and Law Review papers. Not a lot to ask the President of the United States.

Do you really believe proof

Do you really believe proof was not supplied long ago? You can see a copy of the birth certificate on a couple of websites. The proof has been supplied but that has not satisfied the shit-stirrers. I think the refusal to except Obama as president goes deeper than origin of birth or the fact that he is a democrat.

This is good news for Obama

The more Obama's opponents look like the kooks they are the better off he is. Elections are contests between two people (and occasionally a third), not between one person and the imaginary ideal.

What this really proves

What this really proves is that the American political system is coming to pieces. It proves that the ambulance chasers have finally caught the ambulance, and there's no body in it. It proves that the lights are on, but somebody's home, and you can't trust them to go to the corner store for a candy bar and come back with the correct change. It proves that the poll that showed that almost 2/3 of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein personally directed 9/11 attacks was correct. It explains why 80% of Americans can't find Washington DC on a map or why they listen to the beauty pageant raps and think that it's totally plausible that there is such a thing as "opposite marriage".

I would like to take the next train out, but I'm too old so I'm stuck here. If I had it all to do over again, I would go to Canada like I almost did 40 years back.

-Wexler

Birthers

Don't let us keep you here.

Nice misdirection.

..."During Obama's 2008 run for the White House, his campaign and a host of other credible sources repeatedly debunked the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was thus ineligible to serve as president."...

The point of the eligibility lawsuits is that the Constitution requires Obama to be a "natural born citizen". Most of the media have for some unknown reason taken it upon themselves to equate being born in Hawaii as meeting the requirements of being a "natural born citizen". Being a NBC also requires both parents not having foreign and/or multiple citizenships (conflicted allegiances).

Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he fails to reach the status of a "natural born citizen" because of the Kenyan citizenship and the effects of his British Citizenship of Obama's father.

If you are seriously interested in looking at the law and the cases discussing this aspect, I would direct you to the website of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue.

Sincerely,

Zach Jones

Thanks for proving my point.

The flying saucer is boarding shortly, please don't miss it.

"Esquire".

LOLOLOLOL

Birthers

What? You didn't call him a racist??????

Freak me out with your

Freak me out with your courtesy and formality Zach...NBC!!! Your world is so small and black and white...lucky you...unfortunate us...
By the way, I believe you may have some allegiance to Englamd with a surname like Jones. And then there is your first name, Zach, which is Hebrew. Heaven Forbid! You may be a Jew! You are of mixed heritage...OMG! Don't trust this man, he is so clearly un-American!!!

Birthers

There it is, there's the racism.....

Natural Born Citizen

In our Constitution, the Founding Fathers used the term "Natural born citizen" to indicate citizens who had been born on these shores from that date forward, as well as all citizens who had been born or were descended from the original colonists. They went further to indicate also those citizens who had not been born here, but were citizens at the time of the Revolution and chose to stay in the new country, thus affording themselves the ability to continue in government is some cases, as many of them had been born in England prior to their families coming to the colonies.

A natural born citizen is any person born on the soil of this nation. His parentage is not at issue, so the argument about his father is worthless. His mother was an American citizen who gave birth in Hawaii, a state of the union, and therefore, not because of his mother's citizenship, but because of his place of birth, Obama is a natural born citizen. This has been proven and attested to by the officials of the State of Hawaii.

As for the eligibility of presidential candidates based on this criteria alone, John McCain would have been disqualified as a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth in Panama. However, where both parents are serving in a military base outside of the US, they can file to have their child recognized as a US citizen, and that is what McCain's parents did. This is the only type of case where the parentage of a child must be one or both parents in order to recognize citizenship.

So arguments about the parentage of Obama are irrelevant under our Constitution. He was, and has proven he was, born on US soil. That makes him a natural born citizen, not the fact that his mother was a citizen or his father was not. Unfortunately, this is the crux of the anchor baby problems we face in the illegal immigration issue - the children are recognized as American citizens because they were born here, even though their parents are here illegally. You cannot have it both ways when you argue about citizenship, and that is something that the birthers do not seem to understand.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.