Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Liberals: Natural Born Idiots

Don't want to get into a long constitutional and legal debate here, but I do want to make a little comment about the current furor over whether Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is eligible to run for President.

First, forgive me for a little Diplo-Bombast. This little blog spotted the attack on Cruz coming way back when. I wrote a piece, August 1, 2012, titled, "The Media: They Just Can't help Themselves . .  .."  I noted then that the liberal machine, by way of the ultra-liberal L.A. Times, was out to get Cruz, who had still not even been elected Senator. I wrote,
The LAT piece claims that since Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada while his father, a Cuban refugee, worked in the oil business, he is not a "naturally born citizen," even if his mother was a US citizen--which she was. Amazing the stuff they will come up with to try to destroy a rising GOP star. The liberals have to destroy women and minority conservatives above all others; not to do so would give the lie to their narrative that the GOP is the party of rich white guys. Look at the hatred directed at Palin, Bachmann, West, Rice, Cain, Rubio, and now Cruz.
The liberals think this is some clever retaliation for the "birther" attacks on Obama. They conveniently forget, however, that the "birther" stuff emerged from Hillary Clinton's primary campaign and was based upon, as I wrote on May 18, 2012 , a bio blurb by Obama's publisher that,
listed him as born in Kenya. I will assume that Obama, in fact, was born in the US--I don't want to get into that issue right now--but it seems, that in true liberal fashion, he was willing to go along with the gag for some sort of advantage. That advantage could have been funding, e.g., scholarship for foreign students, for his elite university education or just as a status-enhancer to enable him to date more "composite" girlfriends. He is at best a liar, perhaps has committed fraud, and joins Warren as just another race hustler and profiteer.
I still think that Obama claimed to be a foreign student, much as Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed to be "Cherokee," in order to game the grant and affirmative action systems in academia.

Let me get to the point. For many years now, the phrase "natural born citizen" has meant a person who at birth was a US citizen, i.e., a person who did not need to be naturalized to get citizenship. I know there's debate about it, but that is the generally accepted definition. Cruz's mother was a US citizen, and she conferred US citizenship to Cruz at his birth. The issue is bogus; it is irrelevant whether Canada also considers him a citizen by birth because he was born in Alberta. We now see the Twitterverse and the lefto-blogosphere awash in calls for Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

For those still awake and interested in this issue, I would note that the Kenyan Constitution, Chapter Three, Paragraph 14, states,
(1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen.

(2) Clause (1) applies equally to a person born before the effective date, whether or not the person was born in Kenya, if either the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen.
That means, Dear Readers, that per Kenyan law President Obama has a claim to Kenyan citizenship as his father was Kenyan. Should Obama be asked to renounce his claim to Kenyan citizenship? Should McCain renounce any possible claim to Panamanian citizenship? What about all those Irish-American politicians who, under Irish law, could claim Irish citizenship? What about the Italians? What about Jewish politicians? Should Weiner, Bloomberg, Schummer, Feinstein, The Diplomad, etc., be required to renounce any claim to Israeli citizenship? Chris Christie might have claims to both Irish and Italian citizenship, should he be required to march into those Embassies and swear off any loyalty to their countries? Mexican-Americans? I am not forgetting you; get ready to renounce.

Isn't this all a bit silly? There are nearly 200 countries, give or take, in the world. Each one has its own legislation and its own citizenship requirements. Do we all need to be experts on all their legislation? What if one country decided that every person with an "a" in his or her first or last name was a citizen. Would every American so affected be expected to renounce that citizenship? Shouldn't the determination of who is a US citizen be up to US law regardless of what other legal jurisdictions state?

The liberals are hopeless.

WLA

64 comments:

  1. Yeah I know off-topic but ... I believe you'll appreciate & ya'll can go from there >

    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2011/10/genius-or-madman.html

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
  2. If logic were selling for a dollar an ounce most of these vile progressive idiotic liberals would not be able to afford a stick of gum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been trying to think of a movie character to exemplify a typical liberal and I may have it: Otto (don't call me stupid) of "A Fish called Wanda". The one who thinks the London "Underground" is a political movement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can non citizens attend public school in Indonesia? Or would they have to become citizens via a step father having legally adopted them? I don't know the answer but I find it an interesting question that no one the media seems to have asked. Perhaps our host knoes.

    Also adoptions aren't actually rescinded except in a de facto way when the child legally changes back to their birth name. If he was legally Barry Sotero when enrolled in public school in Indonesia when and where did he legally become Barack H. Obama again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was never adopted, and he simply USED his step-father's name without legally changing it to Soetoro, so he did not have to change it back.

      Delete
    2. Re: "Can non citizens attend public school in Indonesia?"

      Answer: YES, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm. (Birther sites made up the whole story about having to be an Indonesia Citizen to attend school in Indonesia.) Moreover, the Indonesian Embassy will also confirm that Obama WAS NEVER an Indonesian citizen---not did he have an Indonesian passport.

      Delete
  5. Agree completely with you - defining "natural born" to be "citizen at birth" seems both obvious and logical.

    The courts never would have touched the question of John McCain's eligibility, but his circumstances are actually among the most interesting in this regard. John McCain was NOT a citizen at birth. He became a citizen due to a law passed when he was eleven months old.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_requirements_for_President_of_the_United_States#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned

    I have to say that Cruz would probably be my preferred candidate right now. The strongest "sell the message" candidates look like Cruz and Rand Paul. I would be happy with Rand Paul, but Cruz (a high level debate champion) just really shines above everybody else on the horizon. There are some decent potential "policy wonk" candidates (Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan), but it just seems at the moment (at least as far as getting elected goes) that the ability to positively articulate the message dominates actual governing skill.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since McCain was born on the US Naval Base, in the family hospital on that base, he was a US citizen at birth. (The birth certificate that is online and claims that he was born in the hospital in Colon, Panama, is a forgery done by one of McCains' enemies. McCain never put his birth certificate online, but the US Senate accepted his word that he was born in the family hospital on the Naval Base.

      Delete
  6. Would be an issue to me if the politician ever took some sort of active step towards claiming a foreign citizenship such as requesting a passport, running for an office in a foreign country, etc.
    Also would be fine if part of a general oath of office were to renounce any and all other citizenships for all of those elected/appointed to public office (not that other countries would recognize the renouncement, but it would clearly state the intent and would probably suffice as a formality).
    Yeah, the 'natural born citizen' disinformation campaign is strong on both sides...
    -reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can tell you for a fact that the consular representative in Amsterdam referred to his satisfaction that my children were "natural born citizens" on exactly the same basis as Cruz: descent through US mother.

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/yes-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-be-president/

    Mark Levin, probably the best Constitutionalist attorney (beside Ed Meese) in the nation, says that Cruz is most definitely eligible to run for POTUS.

    I remember when the Democrats brought up the subject of John McCain's birth and his eligibility; McCain was not born on U.S. soil, as he was born outside the U.S. military installation in Panama and born in a hospital in Panamanian soil. The Senate voted he was eligible.

    There are two kinds of naysayers becoming Ted Cruz "birthers"; those on the left who fear him, and those on the right who want someone like Chris Christy, or another northeastern liberal squish, thinking if we as conservatives offer up another "moderate" this time it will work for us and this time we will win the Oval Office. They were wrong with Dole, McCain and Romney and they are wrong this time, again.

    I also understand that there are those who fear that Ted Cruz will become another [controlled by others] Marco Rubio. But there is a major difference between Rubio and Cruz; Rafael Cruz. If the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, Rafael Cruz is a solid oak. Having been indoctrinated at 17 into believing that Castro truly had the interests of the Cuban people at heart, his eyes were pried open by the reality of the Castro lies after Castro came to power.

    I look for Ted Cruz to also release his university grades. Or at least not issue an order to those universities to seal his records. Why? To add fuel to the fear of the left who recently went after his father.

    Recently, there was an article about "creepy" Ted Cruz and his paisley bathroom. The author amazing found former classmates of Cruz' at Harvard, although we are still searching for anyone who attended Columbia with Obama. Remember the left was capable of not only finding someone who would [illegally] release Rick Perry's Texas A & M grades, for all four years, but found some mystery rock in the panhandle of Texas that seemingly was incapable of being photographed.

    Oh, yes, the left is going after Ted Cruz. They are presently digging to see if there is any mundane story that they can blow up into a major scandal. No one is safe; not his mother, certainly not his father, and we will probably learn soon that one of his kids got a D in math. We can only hope that we live long enough to learn the truth about the current Socialist in Chief.

    Zane

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Mark Levin, probably the best Constitutionalist attorney (beside Ed Meese) in the nation, says that Cruz is most definitely eligible to run for POTUS."

      Levin? LOL. Maybe someone should ask Cruz himself the "$64 Question", "Senator Cruz, would you please tell us exactly and in detail precisely what you think the Founding Fathers meant by the term "Natural Born Citizen".

      Delete
    2. Re: "born in a hospital in Panamanian soil. "

      YOU are referring to a forged birth certificate posted by one of McCain's enemies (McCain never put his BC online). However, he told the US Senate (which believed him) that he was born in the family hospital ON the US Naval Base IN the Panama Canal Zone. His being born on the US Naval Base, US soil, is sufficient.

      Delete
  9. It is obvious to me that Mr. Obama committed some kind of fraud, either for advantage in the selection process and/or for grants/scholarships, when applying to Columbia and Harvard.
    Why else would he spend millions obfuscating his birth certificate and academic record?
    Hell, when Bush II and Gore were running we got to compare their transcripts at Yale...
    Not so the mystery man, Mr. Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because he DIDN'T "spend millions." He did not spend even one cent. That was entirely a birther lie. In fact, there has never been even one lawsuit against Obama for records of any kind. The only lawsuits against him were to have him remove from the ballot in several states (all of which cases birthers LOST).

      Re Bush and Gore "we got to compare their transcripts." Actually neither of them released their transcripts, nor did Clinton or Bush41 or Reagan or McCain or Mitt Rommey. However, we do have a statement about Obama's academic record from Harvard Law School. He graduated Magna Cum Laude. For some reason birthers claim that Harvard Law School could be lying------I wonder what that reason could be?

      Delete
  10. The curious Senator Cruz. He is enjoying the best of both worlds: getting the Commie Libs all lathered up because he stands for something. And getting the Republican establishment all lathered up because, drat his hide, he stands for something. The rascal even beat the Establishment candidate for his Tx Senate seat. My kind of guy. We need more. Now if some of the lemmings on the D side could whack up enough gumption to produce a few similar....

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have known Ted Cruz for several years, since he was still Solicitor General of Texas. He is a brilliant man, a quick-thinking lawyer, and a movement Conservative, meaning he actually knows why he is Conservative, and can give a very good explanation of the Conservative position on any given question.

    The people who "remember" him from college call him abrasive. Their own stories make him out to be the sort of "abrasive" who brings forth fairly irrefutable facts, which makes some people angry. Ever known anyone who got angry at facts? Yes, I rather thought so. His Conservatism is generations old, unlike, for example, our beloved Governor Chameleon Perry. I told him five years ago that, if he could avoid being caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman or a chicken of either persuasion, we'll make him President, if we still have a country over which to preside.

    It is no surprise that the Left hate him, because he is just the man to undo their nasty machinations of the past hundred years. When I hear him verbally taking down a slimy sack of shit like Harry Reid, I go all goose bumps.(Please excuse the mealy-mouthed euphemism.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning no disrespect to s s of s I'm sure. I appreciate your insights on Mr Cruz. Like he said in a recent interview: it took many bipartisan votes to get this far in debt.

      Delete
  12. "The LAT piece claims that since Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada while his father, a Cuban refugee, worked in the oil business, he is not a "naturally born citizen," even if his mother was a US citizen--which she was."

    Naturally born? That should be natural born citizen and Cruz isn't and neither is Rubio nor Jindel nor Obama. Of the around ten times the Founding Fathers referenced citizen in the United States Constitution, one time and one time only, did they use the term Natural Born, in the qualifications for President, so clearly they meant something different from merely a citizen.Cruz himself, to the best of my knowledge, has never claimed to be a Natural Born citizen of America. Natural Born, per the nomenclature used at the time of the Founding fathers meant born in a nation of two citizen parents. This is per Vatel's law of Nations of which Jefferson actually had his own copy. If the Founding Fathers had just meant born in America or born of an America mother, they would have said that.

    But I suppose since we are now a nation of men rather than of constitutional law, who should give a crap anymore. I would like to apologize to the Founding Fathers for all the sacrifices you made now in vain. Your posterity is becoming less and less like you and more and more unworthy of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to see that someone has finally contributed important facts to this discussion--like what the Framers meant by the very specific term "Natural Born Citizen"! That should have been the starting point! As you say, it is NOT the same as this new "naturally born" or the common "naturalized citizen" error.

      (And, by the way, Mark Levin's correct quote was that he hadn't looked into the issue thoroughly. Really??? After how many years of controversy??)

      I LOVE TED CRUZ but he is NOT Constitutionally eligible. Because I believe it is critically important that we remain a nation of laws--as tattered as that concept has become--I must sadly refuse to support Senator Cruz should he decide to run for President. His father's lack of U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth is as important as the country of his birth. I sincerely hope someone shows him the facts and he accepts the truth. We do not need more division in the conservative cause.

      Go Representative Steve Stockman! Expose the fraudulent "birth certificate" of our nation's current president!

      Delete
    2. The evidence of the AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers at the time that the Constitution was written indicates that the term came from the Common Law not from Vattel, and that every child born on US SOIL was considered then---as they are considered today--a Natural Born US Citizen.


      "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

      "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

      Cruz MAY not be eligible because he was not born on US soil. But Jindal and Rubio, and, yes, Obama (who really was born in Hawaii) are all Natural Born US Citizens regardless of the citizenship of one or two of their parents at the time.

      Delete
    3. Troll Alert!

      Dear Ann,

      Our Constitution was written BEFORE any of the references you cite. Your ignorance shows....in your previous post as well.

      Delete
    4. Yes the Constitution was written before the quotations from Tucker and Rawle. BUT, if the writers of the Constitution had really switched the meaning of Natural Born Citizen from the place of birth in the common law to parents DON'T YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IT?

      Instead, Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. No wonder Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the Constitution, said that the meaning refers to the place of birth and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen. And that, btw, is what the Heritage Foundation guide to the US Constitution says too:


      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]


      More reading on the subject:

      http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

      http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

      Delete
  13. "Conservatives" are more and more adopting the end justifies the means philosophy of the left and as Barry Goldwater said, "If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one".

    At a bare minimum, Cruz has a duty to tell the nation exactly what he thinks the Founding Fathers meant by the term Natural Born Citizen. Does he think he is one? Does he think Obama is one? Does he think Rubio is one? Does he think Jindel is one?

    ReplyDelete





  14. I respectfully disagree re this notion of natural born citizenship. The latter requires two elements: jus solis and jus sanguine. Namely, birth in the US to TWO US citizen parents. NBC's do not derive citizenship from any man-made law or statute. Eight Supreme Court cases have referred to this definition of NBC: birth in the US to two citizen parents.

    The Founding Fathers based the NBC requirement for POTUS on de Vattel's definition, using his "Law of Nations" as a source. They replaced the original version of Article Two, that had only stipulated citizenship for POTUS, with the NBC requirement to ensure sole allegiance to the USA. Chester Arthur, before Obama, was the sole illegal POTUS, which is why he tried to hide the fact that his father was a British citizen, as well as perhaps his own birthplace. NBC's cannot be dual citizens at birth or eligible for such.

    The Minor vs. Happersett decision in 1875 was the last and clearest rendering of this definition of NBC. It ruled against Virginia Minor, rejecting her argument that she was a US citizen via the 14th Amendment. Instead, the justices ruled she was a NBC, having been born in the USA to two citizen parents, following the rule that NBC's do not derive citizenship through any man-made statute or law. Thus, the meaning of "natural born" and its connection to natural law.

    Cruz and others born overseas to one or two US citizens are statutory citizens, not NBC's. McCain's case involved his being born in Panama, and apparently not on the base but in Colon. The more interesting aspect of his situation is that both Hilary and Obama co-sponsored Sen. Res. 511 in April 2008, a measure which tried to declare that McCain was a NBC and thus eligible to run for POTUS. That resolution cited the two US citizen parents (jus sanguine) aspect of NBC. Rather absurd considering the inconsistency of Obama, a co-sponsor, lacking that. Although Res. 511 was a non-binding resolution, why both Hilary & Obama had such interest then in obscuring GOP McCain's lack of eligibility, is curious. At that point, McCain was running last in the pack. His own questionable status, of course, prevented his ever addressing Obama's eligibility.

    What we have had since then are both parties trying to blur the NBC issue for their own convenience. There have previously been similar (but unsuccessful) attempts, such as with Sen.Claire McCaskill's efforts to alter the NBC definition through resolutions, rather than by Constitutional amendment.

    INS manuals (Interpretation 324.2 (a) (7) assign a different status to naturalized, native-born, and natural born citizenship, so the distinction is recognized. Most people today assume native-born (jus solis) is NBC which is incorrect. Neither did the Wong Kim Ark address NBC. Cruz lacks both jus solis and jus sanguine; both McCain and Obama lack one of the two elements. However, more than 94% of US citizens are NBC's.

    Not only does the NBC issue need to be cleared up, the entire 14th Amendment having been distorted into conveying birthright citizenship for everyone, has done more damage and needs to be freed of that abuse.

    Old School Marm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank You! That is excellent!

      Delete
    2. "Not only does the NBC issue need to be cleared up"

      You are right about that, but in addition the whole notion of citizenship with regards to qualification for the presidency needs to be revisited. It is ludicrous that someone born in the United States (to two U.S. citizens) who moves overseas as an infant (and never sets foot in the United States again) is eligible to run for president (upon reaching the appropriate age), while someone who immigrates to the United States as a two year old (and naturalizes, while living his or her entire life on U.S. soil) is ineligible fifty years later.

      I sort of like the "living in the U.S. as a citizen for twenty years" (and giving up all other citizenships, of course), but I am not holding my breath for any change in this area.

      Delete
    3. Re: Vattel. He is not even mentioned ONCE in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Yes, many of the writers of the US Constitution did read Vattel----but then they read a lot of other things too And Vattel himself NEVER recommends that the leader of a country be even a citizen of that country. He gives several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that doing that is a bad thing.

      John Jay, who first used the term in a letter to George Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. So, duh, if he had used a definition from Vattel and not from the common law DON'T YOU THINK THAT HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO?

      Delete
  15. The debate over "natural born citizen" has never been conclusively decided but as the Congressional Research Service stated a couple of years ago, "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."

    That is the prevailing view and trying to fight against it is not worthwhile especially since the Founding Fathers were not terribly clear about it and the Naturalization Act of 1790 accepted that US citizens born overseas to US citizens were "natural born."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diplomad, Old School Marm is correct and you are out in left field. You would basically define the term "Natural Born Citizen" out of existence by, in effect, saying it is the same as native born citizen, which is the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted to do. And your saying "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates ... ..." does not change that in the least. It is amazing to me how you can be so brilliant on some things and so blind on others.

      Delete
    2. You have misrepresented the naturalization Act of 1790. It says the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens. Note that even it, which would be superseded by Minor vs. Happersett, says "of citizens" - plural. Obama's father was not an American citizen. Cruz's father was not an American citizen. Nether Rubio's father nor mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth. Nether Jindels's father nor mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth.

      Delete
    3. Where does this debate get you? The prevailing view is as I have stated it. I can guarantee you that if it ever came to the Supreme Court, I know how the court would rule. I agree with Mark Levin who said, He was born of a mother who’s an American citizen. But he was in Canada when he was born. She wasn’t Canadian, she was an American citizen. So the issue isn’t what the Constitution says in that regard, the issue is how do we interpret that. His mother’s an American citizen, so he’s an American citizen. That’s not a constitutional issue. That’s an interpretation issue, or a statutory issue."

      It is not good to engage in debates about how many angels dance on the head of a pin when the devils are coming for us.

      Delete
    4. "It is not good to engage in debates about how many angels dance on the head of a pin when the devils are coming for us." Amen.

      Delete
    5. "Where does this debate get you?"

      I can look myself in the mirror and not see someone who believes, like the left, that the end justifies the means. I like Cruz, probably better than anyone else now on the scene, but I'm not going to sell my soul for him, and I don't even know that he wants me to. He should speak up now and tell us all what he thinks the Founding Fathers meant by Natural Born Citizen, with the qualifications for President being the only place in the Constitution where they used that term out of all the times they used some form of reference to citizen. He has, rightfully, called himself an American citizen, but I'm not aware of his calling himself a Natural Born American Citizen.

      --------------------------------------------------------

      If someone were to ask me, "Were your parents American citizens at the time of your birth?", I would say -"Yes" or "Yes, they were".

      But say that my mother was, but my father was not, then I would have to say, unless I wanted to lie, "No" or "My mother was, but my father wasn't".

      Delete
    6. Anonymous: In the case of someone like Bobby Jindal born to non-citizen parents in the USA, the relevant part of the law is US v. Wong Kim Ark (1896). The San Francisco-born Wong, after going to China and marrying (he sired two sons while over there as well), was stopped when he returned to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act. The government, in its case for holding and deporting him, noted that his parents, Chinese merchants in SF, had never naturalized (in those days, a Chinese-born person forfeited his life if, while overseas, he renounced allegiance to the Chinese Emperor and later returned to China). The USSC ruled that the status of Wong's parents was irrelevant, and his birth in SF rendered him a US citizen under terms of the 14th Amendment.

      Interestingly enough, the sole dissenter in US v. Wong Kim Ark, was John Marshall Harlan, Sr., dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson as well. Harlan's dissent generally focuses on how "alien" the Chinese were as well as the ambiguity of US citizenship law at the time (he was trying to find a way around the language of the 14th Amendment).

      Remember, too, that Dip probably had to do a consular ("Counselor" in his misspelling) rotation early in his career. His job at that time would've been the actual administration of US immigration and nationality law.

      Delete
    7. "His mother’s an American citizen, so he’s an American citizen."

      Facepalm. Double facepalm. No one has ever said he is not an American citizen and no one has ever said his mother wasn't. Neither of those is an issue anymore than the price of tea in China is. This is Clintonesque of you. You need to look inward and reflect. you are better than this.

      "It is not good to engage in debates about how many angels dance on the head of a pin when the devils are coming for us."

      We are not talking about angels or pins here. We are talking about the United States Constitution, at least I am. You seem more concerned with angles to get around it. This is beneath you.

      Delete
    8. Please. The Constitution does not make clear what it means by "natural born." If it did, the debate would be over. The point I was trying to make with my ref to the 1790 Naturalization Act was that the lawmakers of the time, and they were much closer in time and thinking to the Founding Fathers than we are, allowed that a person born overseas could be a "natural born" citizen. That meant that there was no requirement for both being born in the US and having two US parents. That also means that the issue was up for interpretation and debate. It is not unreasonable to assume, as clearly the drafters of the 1790 Act did, that a person born an American citizen would be considered "natural born," and that the definition was a matter for law not the Constitution--which, I repeat, does not make clear the exact definition of "natural born."

      Delete
    9. It is interesting to note that had Alexander Hamilton not carelessly allowed himself to be killed by Burr he could have run for President during his lifetime, on the basis of being a US citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution. But were he to miraculously come back to life today he would be ineligible due to having been born outside the US to parents who were non-citizens.

      But the question with regard to Cruz is moot. Having accepted Arthur and Obama, tradition will effectively rule in Cruz' favor.

      Delete
    10. I am glad you brought up Pres. Arthur, I had meant to and forgot. He, of course, had a British father, and there was always some controversy as to whether Arthur, himself, had been born in the US or in Canada.

      Delete
    11. Re: "which is the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted to do. (Referring to the claim that the writers of the Constitution did not mean that a Natural Born Citizen was not a synonym for a native born citizen)"

      And you know this----how?

      Both Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way as Natural Born was use in the common law, and NOT the way that it was use by Vattel.

      Re the Minor V. Happersett decision. It does not say what birthers think. It does not say, nor does any ruling of the US Supreme Court, that two citizen parents, or even one, are REQUIRED in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.


      http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

      And the US Supreme Court did rule in the Wong Kim Ark case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) that the term Natural Born Citizen comes fro the common law and includes every child born on US soil---and, yes, that includes anchor babies.

      Delete
    12. Continuing:


      And so far ten appeals courts have ruled on presidential eligibility, and every single one of them referred to the Wong Kim Ark case and said that the meaning includes ever child born on US soil. Here are some of the ten rulings:


      Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency...."

      Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

      Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

      Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

      Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

      Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

      On October 1, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of the ten rulings, the Georgia ruling, Farrar, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the other nine rulings too, of course---to STAND.

      Delete
  16. Dip,as an old "counselor" officer, I feel my cockles warmed. Further, both my sons were born abroad (Taiwan and Thailand), so I know all about Consular Reports of Birth Abroad and holding up a tiny infant for a passport photo. And I've dealt with a number of people from countries where loss of nationality isn't any easier than loss of our nationality--and sometimes harder (the Greeks see you as Greek if you might be a descendant of one of Alexander's Hoplites settled Wherever--as long as you're not Muslim--or something like that).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did I misspell consular somewhere in this article? I can't find it. I can't sleep or eat until I do.

      Delete
    2. No, it's a comment on one of your older posts. Still ribbing you for it, even though I have the highest respect for most of what you're saying. So, eat and sleep well, sir. Enjoy the best of health.

      Delete
  17. Dip: Ex-"Counselor" (It's CONSULAR!) officer Cephas feels very sympathetic to what you're trying to say. US Nationality law is a very arcane and convoluted thing, and has had to figure out both ius solis and ius sanguinis aspects of citizenship for a very long time. It's bounced back and forth on a number of issues over the years (what of American women who marry foreigners? How many years do you have to have lived in the USA in order to transmit citizenship to a child born abroad? What of illegitimate children?).

    Ive never been a "birther" over Obama (much as it pains me to own the man as my countryman), and also find the _LASlimes'_ attack on Cruz equally silly. But I really hope that someone gets the evidence on how the O got to attend those prestigious schools, and how his education wad financed--and that they also press the issue that the "birther" campaign was "birthed" in Shrillary Shrew's 2008 bid.

    Further, Canada and the USA are especially messy when it comes to dual nationals. There are more families straddling that border than you can shake a stick at (chalk it up to nearly 200 years of peace since 1915 and a common language). The whole intracompany transfer visa business was written into law to accommodate corporations that had been routinely transferring executives between US and Canadian offices (and think of how many of those Canadian execs brought families, and had children born in the USA).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well this was all getting rather depressing, so many on the right being like those on the end-justifies-the-means left, but now I see a ... no, not angels or angles on a pin ... but a "silver lining". If Cruz gets the nomination and is beaten by Clinton at least I will have some comfort in being able to tell myself the person who won is legally president.

    And don't think for a micro-moment that the democrats would not destroy Cruz over not being a Natural Born Citizen despite the fact that Obama wasn't either. They have a total double standard and no shame and the MSM supports them to the hilt, in case you had not noticed. One of their guys can rape a woman and it's just a friendly touch on the shoulder. One of our guys can touch a woman on the shoulder and it's sexual assualt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be so sure that if Clinton wins it will be by legal means. The Dems are very good at massive electoral.

      Delete
  19. Diplomad, I think you will find that any conversation re: Ted Cruz' qualification to run for POTUS will bring out three types:
    1st) You will have those who are the audience for the LA Times, The Dallas Morning News, HuffingtonPost and Daily Kos (who did hit pieces on Rafael Cruz); 2nd) you will have those who claim GOP creds, but support someone like Chris Christie or some other liberal squish with an (R) behind their name in the mold of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
    The third segment are those of us who understand that Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are the only kind of politician that can save this nation from ourselves.

    Cruz is a threat to the left and the establishment GOP that tolerates men like John Boehner, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Karl Rove. They know it, you know it and I know it. So don't be surprised that they are trolling the internet for any article about Ted Cruz.

    What is really going to be funny is how the left will go full blown "birther" the more popular Ted Cruz becomes. All of a sudden, being a "birther" will become en vogue with the left, with the Washington Compost already printing an article how Cruz "birtherism" is not the same as Obama "birtherism."

    Yep, the far left and the failed Republican establishment are already throwing down the gauntlet on the guy they fear the most. All the more reason for me to support Ted Cruz in any endeavor.

    Zane

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello all,- long time reader (way back from the 1st Diplomad site) who seldom comments, as usually someone has made my point as well or better than I could.

    On this matter though I have to put in my 2 bits as well. I am a "birther" in that I have read a great deal from a lot of sources about Mr. LastNameUnknown aka Barry Soetoro. All I have been able to find about him is that which we've all seen: that he has a phony "birth certificate" which was preceeded by an equally phony "extract of birth certificate." No other (non-phony that is) documents are available, as Barry has gone to considerable effort and cost to hide all that away from prying eyes.

    I have yet to see any legitimate document of any sort that establishes his actual place & time of birth, so all I can accurately say about him is "I dunno where he's from or who he was born to, as there ain't no legit documentation about it nowhere." So I guess it's a moot point about whether he is a "natural born" citizen; I'm not at all sure that he's even a citizen.

    What really makes me despair is the FACT that none of this matters at all. The black-robed dunces, appointed for life, have already determined that the constitution does NOT mean what it says, but whatever they determine it means- which as we all know is a long, long way from what the Founders thought or meant.

    "Congress shall make no law..." what a joke. Have you exercised your right to free speech in a "1st Amendment Zone"? Gee, I used to be so naive that I thought the 1st Amendment applied to the WHOLE COUNTRY- what a fool, hey, but I've learned.

    I do love Ted Cruz, he's probably the only hope we have, but he is not constitutionally eligible. Which doesn't matter, since no one bothers with legality anymore. We are no longer a nation of laws.

    "William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
    -From Man for All Seasons

    This matter has particular significance to me as my children were both born overseas; but as they were born to TWO American Citizens, with their births registered at the American Embassy, they are "natural" citizens of the USA; but they are also citizens of the country in which they were born, due to the laws of that country. They each have two passports, one for the USA and one for the country in which they were born.

    So- are my kids Natural Born Citizens? I would say they have more of a claim than Barry LKN, not that it's ever likely to matter.

    Therefore I must be a "4th" type Zane, as I do support Cruz, and expect to vote for him should he run, but I have no illusions that he is legally eligible for the office. If we were concerned about the rule of law, he would be no more eligible than Barry.

    Sure am glad that I'm getting old. I can't handle my country turning into the... thing... it is becoming- or has become. So I agree with Anonymous (above) whose comments are very much to the point.

    /rant- thanks for reading. Sorry it's so long, but I could say lots more!



    ReplyDelete
  21. Duh! missed the typo, "LNU" for "Last Name Unknown" rather than "LKN" which doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Re: "I have yet to see any legitimate document of any sort that establishes his actual place & time of birth, so all I can accurately say about him is "I dunno where he's from or who he was born to, as there ain't no legit documentation about it nowhere." So I guess it's a moot point about whether he is a "natural born" citizen; I'm not at all sure that he's even a citizen."

    Obama has published his birth certificate from Hawaii TWICE---short form and long form---and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to Obama and confirmed the facts on the copy that the White House has put online are exactly the same as on what the sent to him.

    Also, Obama's birth in Hawaii is further confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send notices to the "Heath Bureau Statistics" section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ann-- For me the issue is not whether he was born in Hawaii--I believe he was--but that the birther stuff started with Hillary based on a bio blur from Obama's publisher stating he was Kenyan. I believe that is why Obama has never released his college info: he very likely attended school as a foreign student and got some scholarship money for foreigners. He later found that very inconvenient and thus the great effort to obfuscate his school records and the murkiness about his origins.

      Delete
    2. Re: "he very likely attended school as a foreign student and got some scholarship money for foreigners."

      THAT story comes from an April Fool's article originally posted on April 1, 2009. It is not true. Obama received US government Student LOANS, and US government student loans are available only to US CITIZENS.

      YES, the birther stuff started with Hillary. She naturally questioned whether her opponent was really born in Hawaii. So what else is new? That is the normal thing to do, to check up on your opponent. But, when she found that the evidence that he was born in Hawaii was OVERWHELMING, she stopped checking.

      Yes, the bio made a mistake, and he publicist admitted making it. A publicist's mistake does not make somebody born in Kenya. The mistake is the reason to check, of course, but when the officials of BOTH parties say that Obama was born in Hawaii AND he government of Kenya says that Obama WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA, you stop checking.

      By the way, did you know that birther sites have not even shown that Obama's mother even had a passport in 1961-----and very few 18-year-olds did. Nor have they told you how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad during the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 due to the relatively high risk of stillbirth.

      Re: "I believe that is why Obama has never released his college info..."

      The actual reason is that Mitt Romney did not release his college info either or John McCain or George Bush or Bill Clinton or Bush41, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon, or LBJ or JFK or Eisenhower. The reason that Obama did not release his college info is that presidents and presidential candidates don't do it--so why should Obama become the first? Just because Obama's enemies claim that nobody remembers him at Columbia (which BTW is NOT true) or because his enemies feel that Harvard Law School is lying when it says that Obama graduated from Harvard Law School MAGNA CUM LAUDE?

      IN any case, Obama was born in Hawaii. The "born in Kenya" story is completely nutty (only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 and all but one of them by ship---and there were no regular ships from Kenya to Hawaii or vice versa in 1961. Obama has not "obfusticated" his college records any more than any other president or presidential candidate. IF McCain and Romney and Clinton and Bush41 had released their college records, and Obama didn't, then you could say that he "obfusticated," but they did not release their records either

      Delete
    3. Perhaps you would like to explain to all us "doubters" why Obama's birth certificate appeared on DailyKos the day before it was released on the White House website?

      Kos tried to scub it, but alas and alak, the Wayback Machine is a fickle mistress.

      Zane

      Delete
    4. Ann_ I don't want to prolong this as I am not a "birther," but Obama has not released his college info as did BUsh and Kerry and others. There is no evidence that he got US federal loans.BTW, you do NOT have to be a US citizen to get Federal student loans--go to the website. If you have a green card you can get them.

      I think he gamed the system and played the "I am a poor foreign student" game much as Warren played the "I am a Cherokee."

      Delete
  24. @ Ann-

    Please go to the WH website, download the "birth certificate" and enlarge it on your own monitor. Look at it closely.

    Can you honestly say that that is *not* a forged document?

    Maybe it's the "smiley face" on the A in "Alvin" that convinces you. After all, since that "signature" was put on with a rubber stamp, there will be lots & lots of other birth certs that have a smiley too, won't there?

    It won't convince you, so I won't bother with a link, but if you go to Sheriff Arpaio's website you can find tons of actual evidence. However, those are just facts, so they don't matter.

    Just like the rule of law, facts are old fashioned & out of style. Pay no attention!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "Maybe it's the "smiley face" on the A in "Alvin" that convinces you."

      There is NO "smiley face."

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/agency-and-patternicity/

      Re Sheriff Joe:

      http://m.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

      Further to the nutty idea that Obama's birth certificate is "forged."

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/ame-o-ospit-or-nstitution-not-in-ospit/

      And, remember, the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties have said that the facts on the birth certificate that the White House has published are EXACTLY THE SAME as on what they sent to him.

      Delete
    2. Ann, there is an old, but true, adage; if you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

      Where are Obama's grades from not one, but THREE tony universities? Are you telling us that there is not ONE person that could not be swayed by a couple of coins to release that information? And you're wrong; John Kerry's grades were released (that's how we knew he was a fair student) as were G.W. Bush's (that's how we knew he was a better student than John Kerry).

      Now, perhaps you are unaware that in the time period when Obama was born, Hawaii had a number of different birth certificates and that children of Hawaiians, who were born somewhere else, could be issued a Hawaiian birth certificate.

      I frankly don't care where Obama was born (although I suspect it was under a rock) because he has already been placed in office and it has become a moot issue. But there is no doubt in my mind that he is a disaster for this nation and the ramifications of his being elected (not counting the fact that he stole the primary from Hillary in Texas) will resonate for generations.

      Now, Diplomad is quite the gentleman and will not be rude to you but I have no qualms in calling you out for the pajama wearing, living in your mama's basement OFA hack you seem to be. I suggest you return to friendlier fields, such as DailyKos/HuffingtonPost which is your kinda place.

      Zane

      Delete
    3. Have YOU PERSONALLY examined the alleged Canadian BC of Ted Cruz? So YOU do not know that it exists, DO YOU?

      How about Mitt Romney's BC? Did you examine that? So YOU do not know that it exists, do you? George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc---did not show their BCs at all. So maybe they do not have BCs? Maybe they were born in a foreign country??

      IN CONTRAST to Cruz and Romney and Bush, etc. Obama has shown both his short form and long form BC AND the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent them to him (Is there a similar confirmation for Cruz or Romney? Answer: NO.) And, in addition to the BC and the repeated confirmations, there is also the public Index Data:

      http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

      And there are the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers' "Health Bureau Statistics" section by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and as the name of the section indicates, and both the DOH and the papers confirm, ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so in 1961 for births IN Hawaii).

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

      (Click on the individual newspapers to see the details. Notice that ever single birth announcement follows the same format: Name of parents, address of parents, son or daughter, date. NO name of child, nothing that indicates that these were family-placed ads, only the facts as a government department would state them.)

      We have all that for Obama. For Cruz and Romney there are only images of short form BCs, no confirmation, no Index Data, no birth notices, no members of the press stating that they had felt the seal. NO images of the raised seal, as there are for Obama's short-form BC. And for some odd reason birthers have not claimed that the Romney and Cruz BCs are forged, and they even accept the word of Cruz's mother that she was born in the USA---so far there has been no proof of that, you know.

      And, it gets worse. Birthers have not even shown that Obama's mother had a PASSPORT in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did in 1961.

      And the birther sites have not told you (I wonder why not?) that EXTREMELY few women traveled late in pregnancy in 1961 due to the relatively high risk of stillbirths. And yet they would like you to believe that there is a reasonable chance that (1) she was among the very few 18-year-olds to have a passport; (2) she was among the extremely few women who traveled late in pregnancy AND (3) that the BCs are forged and the officials of BOTH parties are lying and so is the Index Data and the birth notices.

      No wonder that Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review have all called birthers CRAZY.

      Delete
    4. Re: "Are you telling us that there is not ONE person that could not be swayed by a couple of coins to release that information?"

      If you'd like to try and bribe them, go right ahead. But Obama does not have to show his grades, and why should he. John McCain and Mitt Romney did not show their grades. Are you telling us that there is not ONE person that could not be swayed by a couple of coins to release that information?

      Nor did Clinton show his grades, or Bush41 or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon. Are you telling us that there is not ONE person that could not be swayed by a couple of coins to release that information?

      And the grades for Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson have never been shown by Harvard or Princeton and 100 years or so have passed. And they were both members of Phi Beta Cappa, so their grades were probably very very good.

      In short, presidents and presidential candidates rarely show their grades, if ever. So, why should Obama?

      Delete
  25. Ann-

    You are a liar.

    If you really HAD looked at that phony "birth cert." at the WH website you WILL see the "smiley face" on the 1st "A" in the word "Alvin" which is part of the registrar's rubberstamped "signature." I just went there and looked, just to be sure, so I know you didn't.

    You have nothing, just explanations why you don't have any evidence of anything.

    I'm finished with you. Peddle your lies somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re: "You are a liar."

    There is NO "smiley face."

    Here is the JPG image of the BC, and you will see that there is NO "smiley face."

    http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/ap/obama-709339935_v2.grid-6x2.jpg

    Here is the short form BC, with the same signature of the same official on it, and it does not have a "smiley face" either:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

    So, all you have is your imagination telling you that a smudge or a print through on the page that was picked up by PDF and seems to be a face to you exists. Well, it doesn't exist. (PDF does do strange things to documents. For example, the PDF version of the long form shows the word TXE in it What does the JPG version show? It shows the word THE---with the H being faint.)

    In contrast to such imagination, there is the FACT that birther sites have not even shown that Obama's mother even had passport in 1961. IF she had a passport in 1961, which is unlikely since very very few 18-year-olds did, it might be worth speculating that Obama's BC is forged because THEN there might be a reasonable chance that she traveled abroad and gave birth abroad and Obama's BC was forged to conceal that fact. But birthers have not shown that she had a passport, and they have not even shown the date on which Obama's mother's passport file was CREATED -- AND if it were created after 1961 then she did not have a passport in 1961.

    And birther sites have not told you how EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad in the last two months of pregnancy in 1961. And yet birthers think that they can see a "smiley face" in the birth certificate. Well, the odds are gigantic against Obama's mother traveling abroad in 1961, and hence the notion that Obama's BC is forged is nutty (why forge a BC in which all the facts are exactly the same as what the officials in Hawaii confirm that they sent to him?). And the "smiley face" is a birther dream.

    ReplyDelete