Obama’s Citizenship and the Chain of Command

Civilian control of the military means, oddly, that civilians control the military. And it means precisely that the military does not get to decide which civilians run the country.

Dave Weigel reports that retired Air Force three-star Thomas McInerney, a prominent national security commentator on FOX, has signed an affidavit supporting Army LTC Terry Lakin‘s request demanding President Obama prove he’s a citizen.

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.

As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential– vital– in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.

In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it…Indeed, he has publicly stated that he “invites” his own court martial, and were I the Convening Authority, I would have acceded to his wishes in that regard. But thus stepping up the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin’s request for discovery relating to the President’s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious– and widely held– concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.

Despite the assertions of some of Weigel’s commentors to the contrary, McInerney is no kook.    He graduated West Point in 1959, holds a master’s in international relations from Georgetown, and rose to command the 11th Air Force.  Nor is he a raving partisan.  Soon after retirement from active duty, he headed up the Pentagon’s “reinventing government” initiative under Al Gore.

Now, the man’s 73 years old.   But, while I can’t claim to have watched him a lot lately, he always struck me as perfectly lucid when I saw him doing commentary on FOX.

But let’s just say he’s no Constitutional scholar.  Earlier this year, he advocated full body searches for all 18-28 Muslim men at airports and said that the only reason we’re not doing so is political correctness.   The 4th Amendment, apparently, is less important to him that an obscure passage relating to concerns at the time of the Founding.

There is zero reason to doubt that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii subsequent to its admission to the Union as a state and thus a natural born citizen of the Republic.   Zero.   The fact that a significant number of people nonetheless harbor doubts doesn’t change that.

Regardless, however, Lakin simply doesn’t have the standing to sue here.   The determination as to whether Obama was eligible to serve was made by the Electoral College, whose members voted to make him president, and subsequently ratified by the Congress, which counted the votes and seated him without objection.  These actions render questions about the chain of command moot.    Obama is the 44th President of the United States and, consequently, commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Granting mere lieutenants colonel the right to challenge the authority of the president is madness.   Surely, there were “widespread and legitimate concerns” as to whether Al Gore received more votes than George W. Bush in Florida during the 2000 election.   Once the Supreme Court ended the recount process and the Electoral College and Congress ratified Bush as president, however, the matter was settled.

Similarly, there were surely “widespread and legitimate concerns” during the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton that he had committed crimes and should be removed from office.   Once the Senate voted on the matter, however, the matter was closed for purposes of establishing whether Clinton was entitled to command the armed forces.

Any officer refusing to obey Clinton’s or Bush’s orders on account of qualms about the legitimacy of their holding office would rightly have taken the same trip to Fort Leavenworth that Lakin is scheduled to take.   Civilian control of the military means, oddly, that civilians control the military.   And it means precisely that the military does not get to decide which civilians run the country.  This simply could not be more clear.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Best of OTB, Law and the Courts, Military Affairs, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Brummagem Joe says:

    “McInerney is no kook.”

    Purely a matter of opinion. History is littered with guys who graduated from West Point and started behaving irrationally in later life. At best he’s showing a lamentable lack of judgement for a former three star.      

  2. James Joyner says:

    Well, maybe I should have merely stated that he’s no raving loon.   He’s got some oddball ideas, to be sure.   But he’s highly intelligent, well trained, and quite successful.

  3. Brummagem Joe says:

    James Joyner says:

    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 09:05

    “Well, maybe I should have merely stated that he’s no raving loon.   He’s got some oddball ideas, to be sure.”

    Kook? Raving Loon? A distinction without a difference surely Jim. The airforce does seem to have more than it fair share of oddballs judging by the reports from Colorado Springs. I’ve always held that the military is not a bad reflexion of society as a whole and so if 1% of society is crazy it’s a fair bet that so is at least 1% of the military and some of them probably get stars. General Jack D. Ripper wasn’t totally off the mark.

  4. Jay Dubbs says:

    I guess I understanding why this issue resonates with Obama’s opponents so much, since if he’s not a “real American” they are vindicated in their feeling that only reason that he won in 2008 was that Obama deceived the voters.  (which of course is how most voters on the losing side feel).

    What I don’t understand is why so many, apparently otherwise competent and intelligent people continue to make this argument, or variations of the argument (i.e he renounced his citizenship, his mother renounced his citizenship or he not a natural born citizen because his father was British subject) in public since they must know that: 1) the actual facts are not on their side; 2) it makes them look foolish; and 3) it won’t change anything.  
    (This post obviously doesn’t apply to Zels III.)
     

  5. Franklin says:

    People believe what they want to believe.  The latest political e-mail I got from my dad was this video of Obama saying he was born in Kenya.  With horribly spliced audio.  Facing away from the camera.  And the crowd he’s talking to makes absolutely zero reaction to this stunning fact.  And the video was originally created by a humor site.
    But that doesn’t stop the insane conspiracy theorists or right-wing propaganda machine from not only forwarding, but apparently believing this video is legitimate.  McInerney may be no kook or raving loon, but he’s probably extremely gullible, as many old people are.

  6. PD Shaw says:

    Jay Dubbs, a part of the answer to your question I believe is that the “natural born citizen” provision is an enigma.  It’s a term that appears to have been created offhand to quash a conspiratorial view that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were going to push a Prussian Prince on the new Republic.  The delegates couldn’t even agree on what “citizenship” meant at the Convention.  There is a pretty good law review article written before Obama was on the horizon that warned that this language was going to be increasingly problematic.  And McCain’s birth was not unproblematic either.

    All of this means that there is material for creative minds to make up natural born citizenship rules.  Most of these minds are also cracked though.

  7. Jay Dubbs says:

    PD – are you suggesting that the founding fathers didn’t have perfect clarity as they were drafting the Constiution and complete understanding of how it would effect future generations?

  8. Brummagem Joe says:

    Jay Dubbs says:

    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 10:49

    “PD – are you suggesting that the founding fathers didn’t have perfect clarity as they were drafting the Constiution and complete understanding of how it would effect future generations?”

    According to this version they must still have been worried about that Prussian Prince in 1868 when they passed the 14th. 

  9. PD Shaw says:

    Jay, I might be saying that, but between the lines I’m really saying it’s time to repeal the citizenship and residency requirements for the POTUS.

    Everybody who thinks Obama is a transnational goof without sufficient patriotism or visceral connection to the United States knew that before the election.  The argument was lost.

  10. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:
    “Something so stupid only an intellectual could believe it.”
    On the other hand, this seems to be a relatively easy issue for our Commander-in-Chief to resolve. So, is he hiding something, like his college transcripts, or is he doing a Jedhi mind-trick to keep the birth certificate pot boiling?
    I don’t find the Electoral College and Congressional vote approval arguments very convincing as, to my knowledge, neither actually addressed the question.
    I had to produce a birth certificate to enroll in Social Security and, so far, all those guys have done is take part of my earnings.  Similarly, to get a passport, I have to produce a birth certificate.  What’s the big problem with producing the document?  The Presidency would seem to be somewhat more important than either of those.

  11. sam says:

    @11B40
    “Similarly, to get a passport, I have to produce a birth certificate. What’s the big problem with producing the document?”
     
    Well, golly, this should be easy to resolve, then. Did Obama have a passport prior to becoming president?  Gosh, I guess he did!!
     

    Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College. In February 1981, he made his first public speech, calling for Occidental’s divestment from South Africa. In mid-1981, Obama traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in India and Pakistan for three weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
     

    Perhaps you could trot these facts by some of the heavy breathers in the birther movement, OK?

  12. mantis says:

    What’s the big problem with producing the document?
    There is none.  He already did produce it.  Years ago.  Pay attention, birther.

  13. Brummagem Joe says:

    11B40 says:

    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 11:58

    Somebody else who thinks his bodily essences are under threat from Obama.

  14. Jay Dubbs says:

    The documents were produced -some found them wanting, some decided that there was another theory as to why he was not a natural born citizen.  It is unlikely that any document could be produced that would satisfy the doubters.

    and BTW – what do college records have to do with proving any of this?

  15. Herb says:

    I had to produce a birth certificate to enroll in Social Security and, so far, all those guys have done is take part of my earnings.  Similarly, to get a passport, I have to produce a birth certificate.  What’s the big problem with producing the document?  The Presidency would seem to be somewhat more important than either of those.

    Ha!  Birthers are an endless source of amusement.  So dumb they don’t even know it.

  16. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Brummagem Joe, you made a blanket statement.  List those who went to West Point and stated behaving irrationally.  Speaking of irrational behavior, how have you been lately Joe?  I you cannot post a substancial list it would be an indication your are getting your information from your rectal cavity.

  17. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    A natural born citizen is a person born of two American citizens.  The citizenship of the parents can either be natural, that is born here, or naturalized.  Which means they went through the process to become citizens.  Obama has one natural citizen parent and on British citizen parent.  It matters not where he was born but who he was born to.  Obama was born with dual citizenship which precludes him being a natural born citizen.  His long form birth certificate will probably show his faters citizenship as British which opens up the challenge.  Do not worry, when the GOP controls congress, this matter will be resolved.  Get used to saying President Biden.

  18. Steve Plunk says:

    I don’t need a birth certificate to know he’s less like the average American than the average Canadian.  His nurturing through life was at the hands of people who twisted his view of America.  What I see as an exceptional country he sees as unexceptional.  What I see as a good and proud history he apologizes for.  The people I trust and work alongside he calls bitter clingers.  Birth certificate or not he’s no American like I have ever known.
     
    As for misleading the voters the independent voters are sure feeling misled these days.

  19. sam says:

    ” Obama was born with dual citizenship which precludes him being a natural born citizen.”
     
    That stupid argument again. For the last time, if that argument is valid, then damn few of us would be eligible to be president, including, most signally, Ronald Reagan. You’re an idiot, Zelsdorf.

  20. Brummagem Joe says:

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 14:30

    “I you cannot post a substancial list it would be an indication your are getting your information from your rectal cavity.”

    Maybe I was wrong and Obama is having some effect on your bodily essences after all. 

  21. mantis says:

    A natural born citizen is a person born of two American citizens.
    Wrong.  A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen, as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen by going through the naturalization process.  To be a citizen at birth, for the most part, you must be born to an American parent or parents, or be born on American soil.  Obama qualifies on both counts.

    Birther FAIL.

  22. mantis says:

    Birth certificate or not he’s no American like I have ever known.


    Your failure to leave Pigs Hollow (or whatever backwater hole you reside in) even once in your life is certainly not the fault of the president.

  23. sam says:

    The following were not eligible to be president under the Zelsdorf Rule, if the foreign parent never naturalized:
     

    Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

    You’re an idiot, Zelsdorf.

  24. Herb says:

    Zels once again states as facts things that are not facts……
    And Steve once again mistakes his opinions for facts.
     
     

  25. Mark says:

    Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code supports ZR3’s statement. To the best of my knowledge, no one has answered the question of what passport Obama used to go to Pakistan; US or Indonesian? That seems to be shrouded in the same blanket of secrecy that covers school records, financing, etc. You intellectually superior Libs are a scream, nothing has been proven until a long form birth certificate has been produced and verified. This recent history would, until proven otherwise, seem to confirm the wisdom of the authors of the Constitution and supporting documents who were suspicious of the loyalties and actions of a President who did not meet their qualifications. There is nothing in the Constitutional language or the Oath of Office which gives the President the right to selectively enforce the laws of the land (referencing Arizona & immigration for you Libs) or to present a fabricated charge against a state of the United States to an imaginary jurisdictional United Nations. So, if he in fact does have this long form certificate it is a start. There is still the issue referenced at the beginning of this post.

  26. Brummagem Joe says:

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 14:30
    Zels: an airforce general who sounds suspiciously like McInerney explains how you can protect your precious bodily fluids from communists like Obama.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

  27. sam says:

    @Mark
    “Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code supports ZR3′s statement.”
    Well, here’s the section. Show us where it places Obama outside the vale — and would also not do the same thing to Reagan?
    § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
    (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

  28. sam says:

    @Mark
    “To the best of my knowledge, no one has answered the question of what passport Obama used to go to Pakistan; US or Indonesian? ”
    So effing what? He has an American passport, birth certificate required, and had one prior to the election:

    State Department employees snooped through the passport files of three presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain — and the department’s inspector general is investigating.

    State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the violations of McCain and Clinton’s passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the unauthorized access of Obama’s records and a separate search was conducted. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23736254/

    Unless you want to say he didn’t have a passport but he did have passport files. But you guys are capable of saying anything.

     

  29. mantis says:

    Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code supports ZR3′s statement.
    It does?  You don’t support that statement in any way, so let’s have a look at the <a href=”http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html”>U.S. Code</a>, shall we?

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    Well, what do you know?  The first one!  Obama was born in the United States.  Case closed.  However, even if Obama were born outside the United States, which he wasn’t (birth certificate posted online in 2007 states he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, which has been confirmed by state officials, including the Republican governor), he would still be a citizen under section D:
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    Since you cite code which very clearly states the opposite of what you claim, it’s clear you are completely unfamiliar with the other things you reference, but let’s just go through them anyway, mmkay?
    To the best of my knowledge, no one has answered the question of what passport Obama used to go to Pakistan; US or Indonesian?
    Well, that’s an easy one.  He is, and was, a US citizen, not an Indonesian citizen, so his passport was clearly from the US.  Indonesia doesn’t issue passports to citizens of other countries.  Why you think they would, I have no idea.
    You intellectually superior Libs are a scream, nothing has been proven until a long form birth certificate has been produced and verified.
    The State of Hawaii does not produce “long form birth certificates” anymore.  Haven’t for years.  What they do produce has been publicly provided by the Obama campaign and verified by Hawaii officials, including the Republican governor.
    This recent history would, until proven otherwise, seem to confirm the wisdom of the authors of the Constitution and supporting documents who were suspicious of the loyalties and actions of a President who did not meet their qualifications.
    The authors of the Constitution were suspicious of presidents that did not yet exist?  You do realize that the Constitution was written before there was a president, right?
    There is nothing in the Constitutional language or the Oath of Office which gives the President the right to selectively enforce the laws of the land (referencing Arizona & immigration for you Libs) or to present a fabricated charge against a state of the United States to an imaginary jurisdictional United Nations.
    Nonsense.  Arizona does not have the authority to trump Federal law and enforcement of the border and immigration.  Further, no “fabricated charge” has been made against Arizona, and the document you wrongly refer to was a report to the UN, per our agreement as signatory, and has nothing to do with “jurisdictional United Nations.”  What any of this has to do with a birth certificate, I have no idea.
    So, if he in fact does have this long form certificate it is a start.
    He doesn’t.  He has what the State of Hawaii issues, and that’s more than enough for any state in the union, and the US Department of State (see his passport at the top of the post?  He needed a birth certificate to get that).
    There is still the issue referenced at the beginning of this post.
    Which misunderstanding of yours are you referring to?

  30. Steve Plunk says:

    Mantis my friend,  I guess your making an assumption as to my hillbilly background.  Bravo.  That’s some stellar thinking.  Rather than counter my points just turn it into an ad hominem attack and you win!  Except you don’t anywhere but in your own mind.
     
    Herb, Those are my opinions alright.  Take them for what you will but I’m always allowed to express them.  I don’t believe I represented them as anything else other than my opinion.  What’s yours?  You didn’t express any of your own but just slighted mine.

  31. mantis says:

    Mantis my friend,  I guess your making an assumption as to my hillbilly background.  Bravo.
    Just an educated guess based on your comment that Obama is like no American you know.   There are a lot of different kinds of Americans, a fact that your experience has apparently deprived you from knowing.
    Rather than counter my points just turn it into an ad hominem attack and you win!
    You had some points to counter?  All I saw was standard wingnut babbling bullshit.  Not really worth much spending a lot of time on that sort of thing.

  32. Brummagem Joe says:

    Sam/Mantis you guys do sterling work in demolishing these folks and I thoroughly applaud your efforts but are the rantings of the hate consumed to be taken seriously? I admit they were probably saying the same thing in Germany in 1931 but personally I find it impossible to find these folks as anything other than humorous a bit like the moonies, believers in alien abduction or Al Sharpton. 

  33. Mark says:

    @Mantis/sam Found one of the reference articles I have saved for moments like this  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
    You may or may not agree with the interpretation of the information. Now let’s go to Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code which defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *

    I noticed you dropped the asterisk. “* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.” Here it becomes a bit cloudier. His father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of BHO II birth. I have read opinions on both sides of their laws…saying that a child born in a foreign country, to a Kenyan citizen, would not be under any jurisdiction but Kenya. I am not a lawyer, and certainly not well versed on the citizenship laws of Kenya, but it does call for more investigation.
    Sam, it does not say what the results of the searches were, now does it?
    Mantis, you continue to reference a Certificate of Live Birth which is not the same a Long Form Birth Certificate. The Hawaiian Certificates were used for years to create a “citizenship”, a true copy of the actual Birth Certificate with full and complete information as included on said forms issued in 1961 would put this to rest.
    So far as the Arizona reference; nonsense yourself. The law passed in Arizona insisted on enforcement of existing federal laws. No more, no less.
    Explain to me why you would think it is a good idea for a report to be made to the United Nations on a states supposed shortcomings on human rights issues, based on the law I referred to. This would be the same United Nations which placed Iran on its council for Women s Rights, correct? That is a bit like reporting to the Bill Clinton Marriage Ethics Committee. And yes, I made that up…got a certain ring to it, doesn’t it?

  34. wr says:

    Steve Plunk — To many of us who voted for him, the fact that Obama in no way resembles any of your buddies is one of his great assets.

  35. Jay Dubbs says:

    Mark,

    Obama’s father wasn’t a diplomat.  He was subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as all foreigner who do not have diplomatic status are.

    See wasn’t that easy.  No need for Congressional investigations.`

    Any other questions?

  36. There is zero reason to doubt that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii subsequent to its admission to the Union as a state and thus a natural born citizen of the Republic.   Zero.
    There isn’t any real evidence he was born elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean he was born where he says he was. And, he hasn’t provided definitive proof that he was born in HI, despite what you might have heard. It’s very bad for the U.S. when people are cowed into claiming that something’s been proven when it hasn’t been. It’s also a huge missed opportunity to discredit a wide variety of MSM hacks. Have an open mind and then see my name’s link for the details.
    P.S.  The current final paragraph of the CNN report at peekURL.com/z3l6cqz lies about the basic, indisputable facts of this matter. I.e., it makes statements that are objectively false. Those who tell you to ignore this issue are foreclosing using this issue to discredit CNN, and that’s just stupid.

  37. mantis says:

    Mark, thank you for revealing your misunderstanding of the Constitution and the word jurisdiction. Guess what, foreigners (real foreigners, not imaginary ones like the president) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are within our borders.  If such a foreigner were to have a child here, that child would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, unless, as Jay notes, that foreigner were a diplomat, and as such had immunity.
     
    I have read opinions on both sides of their laws…saying that a child born in a foreign country, to a Kenyan citizen, would not be under any jurisdiction but Kenya.

    I’ve read a lot of stupid crap on the internet too, but that doesn’t mean the writers had a clue what they were talking about.

    I am not a lawyer

    Nor do you have even a surface knowledge of the laws you are discussing.  Thanks for playing.

  38. Jay Dubbs says:

    The State of Hawaii affirms where he was born.  The contemporaneous birth announcement confirms where he was born.  The certificate of live birth has been released.

    But still “[t]here isn’t any real evidence he was born elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean he was born where he says he was. And, he hasn’t provided definitive proof that he was born in HI”

    Makes any thinking person actually want to pull their hair out.
    Or at least reminds me of this question – what color is the sky in your world.
     

  39. mantis says:

    There isn’t any real evidence he was born elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean he was born where he says he was.


    No it doesn’t, but all the evidence that he was born here does.


    And, he hasn’t provided definitive proof that he was born in HI, despite what you might have heard.


    Who are you going to believe, anonymous blog commenters or your lying eyes?  Definitive proof, as defined by crazy birthers, cannot possibly exist.  Otherwise, what would they do with their lives?  Birth certificate?  Lies!  Confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health?  Lies!  Confirmed by the Republican governor of Hawaii?  Lies!  Contemporary newspaper announcements of the birth in Hawaii?  Lies!   You nuts wouldn’t be satisfied if a time machine were invented to take you back to witness the birth in the hospital yourselves.

  40. Brummagem Joe says:

    “There isn’t any real evidence he was born elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean he was born where he says he was. ”

    See what I mean. Alien abduction has nothing on it. Years ago such embarrassing family members were kept out of sight or one had a quiet talk to the family doctor about whether committal was the solution. 

  41. sam says:

    @Mark
    “Sam, it does not say what the results of the searches were, now does it?”
    The information is confidential, and Condelezza Rice apologized to Obama in person. But I guess she’s part of the conspiracy, too, right?  But all this freeper-inspired nonsense about being unable to travel to Pakistan in 1981 on an American passport is thoroughly debunked over at Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp
     
    And you still have not explained to us how your “citizenship” argument would not disqualify Ronald Reagan. Now you’ll have to think about this a bit, do a little research, and reflect on the idea of inheritance.
     
     

  42. Wayne says:

      Re “The determination as to whether Obama was eligible to serve was made by the Electoral College”
    So if Arnold ran for President and won the majority of electoral electorate who would most likely turn and vote for him in the Electoral College, that would mean he was eligible to run in the first place? I am not buying it.
     
    Personally I believe Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. However to say there is no “real” evidence that he isn’t, is simply not true. Unless “real” is a code word for only evidence that you like. There has been testimonial and a Kenya birth certificate. Does that prove he was born in Kenya? Not in my opinion it doesn’t but it does bring up question.  The evidence provided that he was born in Hawaii is as weak or weaker.  A Hawaii certificate of live birth does not prove by any means that he was born in Hawaii. There are people born outside of the U.S. and not even of U.S. parents that have that certificate. Hawaii law provides them with legal means to acquire one.
     
    It is also possible that his mother who was a radical or even Obama renounce his citizenship at some time. I have never seen any evidence to indicate that but is a possibility.
     
    IMO Obama could put this story for most to rest but he doesn’t.  Not doing so has made many people wonder why not. Maybe he playing politics, maybe he feels that he shouldn’t have to, maybe he can’t, or some other reason. Regardless the reasons,  he is keeping the story alive.   

  43. sam says:

    @Wayne
    “IMO Obama could put this story for most to rest but he doesn’t”
     
    How in God’s name can he do that if you say
     

    The evidence provided that he was born in Hawaii is as weak or weaker. A Hawaii certificate of live birth does not prove by any means that he was born in Hawaii. There are people born outside of the U.S. and not even of U.S. parents that have that certificate. Hawaii law provides them with legal means to acquire one.

    What kind of evidence, short of a time-date stamped, genetically verified placenta — which time-date, genetics,  would be challenged by the bitter-enders — could he produce to shut them the fvck up?

  44. mantis says:

    Unless “real” is a code word for only evidence that you like.
    Actually, “real” is a code word for “not ridiculously, transparently fraudulent,” as the examples you cite.
    Not in my opinion it doesn’t but it does bring up question.
    Only if you’re willing to believe whatever ridiculous bullshit you see, as long is it supports your pre-conceived conclusion.
    The evidence provided that he was born in Hawaii is as weak or weaker.  A Hawaii certificate of live birth does not prove by any means that he was born in Hawaii.
    Yes it does.  It says it right on the document;  Born in Honolulu, Hawaii
    There are people born outside of the U.S. and not even of U.S. parents that have that certificate. Hawaii law provides them with legal means to acquire one.
    Their documents would specify their place of birth outside the US.  Obama’s states his place of birth is Honolulu.  You’re an idiot.
    It is also possible that his mother who was a radical or even Obama renounce his citizenship at some time. I have never seen any evidence to indicate that but is a possibility
    It is also possible Obama was born to extraterrestrials.  I have never seen any evidence to indicate that but it is a possibility.
    Regardless the reasons,  he is keeping the story alive.
    Yeah, it’s Obama keeping this story alive.  He got a copy of his birth certificate from the state, put it online, and showed it to reporters (not to mention the statements from Hawaii officials, contemporary newspaper announcements, etc.).  So devious of him.

  45. wr says:

    Wayne — It is even more possible that your mother renounced your citizenship. After all, I have no evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you should supply some. Which does bring up a slight problem — how exactly do you prove that someone has not renounced her citizenship? As soon as you explain that, I’m sure Obama will jump to follow.

  46. Steve Plunk says:

    BJ,  You’re in time out for validating Godwin’s law.
     
    Mantis,  It’s just lazy to say you won’t counter my points because there were none.  Having no idea what my world experiences are your speculating in an effort to build me up as a straw man.  You’re still losing.
     
    wr,  A good number of us didn’t vote for him and a large number wish they hadn’t.
     
    I’ve made it clear where Obama was born has less to do with things than how poorly he is performing as president.  I see it, the country sees it, and even his fellow Democrats see it.  Personally I believe the Left likes to keep this Birther controversy alive so the real issues are avoided.

  47. mantis says:

    You’re still losing.

    How does one lose to someone who is just masturbating on himself?

  48. Jay Dubbs says:

    Alright!  The “Obama is a Foreigner” thread has taken back the comment lead from the “There is No God” thread.

    Keep it up, we’ll show those God lovers/heathens whose crazier!

  49. ratufa says:

    Steve Plunk,

    – “What I see as an exceptional country he sees as unexceptional.”

    More than once, Obama has said that America is an exceptional country. Some examples at:

    http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/02/28/on-american-exceptionalism-and-barack-obama/

    Overall, though, I think that excessive cheerleading about American exceptionalism, like other forms of bragging, is not a sign of strength nor does it impress anyone who isn’t already convinced.

    – “What I see as a good and proud history he apologizes for. ”

    When I look at lists of Obama’s so-called “apologies”, such as:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Barack-Obamas-Top-10-Apologies-How-the-President-Has-Humiliated-a-Superpower

    they seem to be lacking in actual apologies. Mostly, they are admissions that we’ve made some mistakes. What parts of our history that you are particularly proud of has he apologized for?

    – “The people I trust and work alongside he calls bitter clingers.

    I’ll give you that one. At least he hasn’t repeated that language, unlike some politicians who persist with divisive talk (but, that would be political suicide in his case, so I’m not going to give him too much credit for that).

    – “Birth certificate or not he’s no American like I have ever known.”

    Obama seems like a typical, upper middle-class, college-educated academic type to me. Not even particularly liberal with respect to the norm for that group.

  50. Jay Dubbs: The dir. of the HI dep’t of health has issued one (1) statement in which she said he was born there. In the same statement she made a legal claim she’s not qualified to make (that he’s “natural born”) and then rhetorically stalked off in a huff.
    No one has been able to prove that the announcements would only indicate a HI birth. If you know someone who’s proved it, drop a citation.
    And, the COLB hasn’t been “released”. Obama put a picture on his site. A picture of something and the thing itself are sometimes different. And, the only other group that’s claimed to see the cert subsequently lied and misled for Obama.
    For you, this is a religious issue: you have religious faith in Obama. I’ll stick with legal principles and the scientific method. He hasn’t definitively proved where he was born.

  51. Nikki says:

    You birther folk just come here to rile up these guys here with your crazy talk, aren’t you? These guys are smoking you with their arguments and just birthers just double down on the crazy.

  52. ratufa says:

    Two statements about Obama’s birth certificate by the director of the Hawaii Dept. of Public Health are available at:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    The second statement says:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    This doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room to continue with the birtherism. Maybe the doctor is lying, but what is the evidence for that? Perhaps one could argue that somebody born in the State of Hawaii and whose mother is a U.S. citizen isn’t really a citizen because of some technicality. Or that Obama actually was born before Hawaii became a state. Or something even more creative. Don’t let us down!

  53. Brummagem Joe says:

    Steve Plunk says:

    Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 19:33

    “BJ,  You’re in time out for validating Godwin’s law.”

    It would help if I knew what Godwin’s law was. Anything to do with alien abduction?

    Back in the thirties a large number of people who hated FDR claimed he was Jewish. All the evidence to the contrary didn’t stop most of them going to their graves believing his real name was Rosenstein. 

  54. Grewgills says:

    There has been testimonial and a Kenya birth certificate.

    A transparent forgery.  For more on this see http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp

  55. Fred Herndon says:

    Joyner, go read the constitution.  Kenyan Father and Kansas Mother do not make two natural born parents to beget a Natural Born Citizen per the Constitution and Law of Nations.  Obama has admitted this in many speaches.  End of that Discussion.  Second discussion:  RTFM:  Our constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 gives the Supreme Court of the United States the origianl Jurisdiction over any case affecting an Ambassador(s), other Public Ministers and Counsuls, and those in which a state shall be Party.  Obama is in a Minister position as the President same as the Prime Ministers of England, Austrailia, New Zeland, etc.  LAKIN has a direct standing in the Supreme Court just as You and I and every other SOVERIGN American does on the very fact that Obama has admitted that his Father is Kenyan and his Mother is Kansasan and his Grandmother has also stated this on live video along with other Kenyans.  Stop the commy one sided journalism and print the truth.  Respond to me if you have the courage.

  56. Fred Herndon says:

    PS:  I forgot.  Obama’s birth certificate is immaterial to the case.  The Governor and others in Hawaii are immaterial also.  Obama’s own public statements that are recorded in public Federal Documents are what is material.  Have a nice day.

  57. Selene Sweck says:

    I’m amazed at some of the remarks and name calling above.  One should not be so quick to call someone dumb when it apprears that they don’t have all of the necessary information concerning this matter and apparently have not read the legal briefs concerning the same.  Calling an individual a “birther” is a derogatory label and mean spirited. Vilifying someone who questions the constitutional authority of President Obama to be the President of the United States, is improper, at best.   Mr. Obama has not shown his long form birth certificate and he did receive the Fulbright Scholarship to Occidential College (it is a scholarship for international students) so there are valid reasons to question; furthermore, the electoral college only verify’s the states votes being correct, it does not vet the presidential candidate or require verification of naturalization.  I have never really been concerned but only got interested when President Obama refused to release his long form birth certificate, his college transcripts, source of financial sources and/or scholarships for grad and law school.  I became even more interested when he has legally faught release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  Now, I’m interested and want to know, why the secrecy and why has he gone to such legal expense to withhold documents that every other president shows to the American Public.  Why, Why, Why?