It has been said that if you want to know what is going on in Washington, just look at the record. From the record, it appears that as the clamoring began over the fact that Sen. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American citizens (serving in the military), Barack Obama attached himself to McCain’s cause as a means of protecting himself as well.
A bill known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK), in February 2008. This Act attempted to allow the Senate to make changes to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 with reference to the definition of “natural born citizen” and that requirement as it applies to the eligibility of the President of the United States. This bill met the same defaet that similar changes to the Naturalization Act had faced.
Is there irony in the fact that this legislation was sponsored by Presidential candidates in the midst of the elction, one now being the subject of more than 30 lawsuits, challenging his eligibility!
A review of the S 2678 and Senate Resolution 511 in more depth: http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus.html
Google cahe of the Senate 2678: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:-8mxNrTuzJsJ:www.jcics.org/natural%2520born%2520summary%2520
Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog 
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Mike
Except that it wouldn’t alter the meaning of the natural-born citizen clause at all; it would have clarified it to explicitly include the children of American military personnel born overseas.
Furthermore, it also would have had absolutely no material effect on Obama, as he was a) born in Hawaii, and b) born to civilian parents.
January 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Interested Bystander
Mike,
What is a civilian parent Mike? We’re all civilians Mike. Even military people are civilians.
What evidence do you have that Obama was born in Hawaii? I have researched this to no end, and I still haven’t come up with any evidence at all that proves conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.
I want to put this to bed Mike.
Since you seem to know Mike, answer these questions for me Mike:
What proof do you have that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Was Obama adopted by Lolo Soetoro?
What passport did he use to travel to Pakistan in 1981?
Did Obama recieve scholarships, or grants that were set aside for foriegn students while he was at Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard?
Pretty easy questions Mike, and if you can give me proof of your answers, then we can put this issue to rest, once and for all.
January 17, 2009 at 6:44 pm
JAMES
IB: Edward Viera, a lawyer who has written on the Constitutional aspects of this birth certificate problem, has said that if he was Obama’s lawyer, he would have given him 15 minutes to produce the documents for him, or sign the papers so they could be released to the lawyer, or he would have ceased being his attorney. He cited a 1976 Supreme Court decision that siad the failure to release the items that would have readily resolved this type of conflict amounted to fraud.
January 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Interested Bystander
Mike,
I forgot, I want conclusive proof, with links to where you got your answers.
I doubt you can answer even one of my questions, and do you know why? Because Obama will not release the documents, that’s why.
January 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Interested Bystander
Mike,
I’d also like to know why Obama’s father’s race is listed as “African” on his Certification of Live Birth?
I have been given the reason as the Hawaiian HHS folks let people tell them what to put on the Certificate. I find this a bogus reason.
Would they let someone list their race as “American”, or “Canadian”, or maybe “Martian”, or how about “Hoosier”? I doubt it Mike, even in 1961, when Obama was born, there was classifications of race. I believe they would be Asian, Caucasion, Hispanic, Indian, or Negroid.
I have been baffled by this for a while. When I was given the reason above, I thought it sounded like a bogus argument.
But Mike, you seem to know Obama was born in Hawaii, so maybe you could explain the “Race” issue from Obama’s Certification of Live Birth.
Thanks for your informative help Mike.
January 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
I will only comment that it is fraud IF Obama is found not to be eligible to hold the office.
I will consider it stupidity on his part, IF they prove he is eligible, and didn’t take care of it from the beginning.
One of my major problems are all of these people, including Congressmen, and Senators, who send their constituents letters back stating that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is his Birth Certificate.
I agree that the Certification of Live Birth fulfuills the State Department’s requirements and they would issue a passport using this document, but it still DOES NOT prove that Obama is a “natural born citizen”.
I’m going to write my Congressman and both Senators right now. I’m interested in what they respond.
I’ll keep you informed.
January 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm
JAMES
IB: The gist of this post link is that members of the Young Republicans contacted both hospitals that Obama is alleged to have been born in, as well as many others on the island, and their results are listed. Now, from a marketing standpoint, if you were the marketing director for the hospital where Obama WAS born, wouldn’t that be the newest part of your marketing campaign? Wouldn’t that be on every piece of leaderhead, on every brochure, etc?
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
January 17, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
Great article.
For those interested, this may be a wealth of information also.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index
I was reading the letter to the Washington Times.
I know what I’ll be spending my Sunday doing.
January 18, 2009 at 11:52 am
Buy shares in Reynolds Wrap! « The Odd Blog
[…] While noodling around on the WordPress tag pages, specifically the Barack Obama tag, I came across the following: It has been said that if you want to know what is going on in Washington, just look at the record. […]
January 18, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Interested Bystander
Mike,
It’s good to see that I have become the reason to post a thread on a blog. Kind of shows that I have some legitimate points.
I will not coddle to you Mike, I will not post on your worthless, ill informed blog, but I will respond here:
The first thing I will comment on is you wanting to call names. Seems to me that this only lessens the affect of your answers Mike, you know, like you don’t have an argument, so you try to intimidate with name calling. It also speaks volumes of your maturity Mike.
You see Mike; I did not once state that Obama wasn’t eligible, only that he has not proven to me, and many others that he is eligible. It’s rather simple to do Mike, just have Obama release the documents.
The first issue you try to call me on is what a civilian is. You link this:
“1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.”
Where in here does it say that military folks aren’t civilians Mike, care to point that out to me? Everyone is a civilian Mike, like it or not. Just because someone doesn’t wear a uniform doesn’t mean they aren’t military Mike, just ask those who were in Vietnam, or Iraq and Afghanistan, and just because someone wears a uniform doesn’t keep them from being a civilian.
The next issue was the birth announcement. You reference this from the Honolulu Advertiser:
“IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby’s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.”
And this from the Star Bulletin:
“Each Sunday, the Star-Bulletin publishes Oahu vital statistics for marriage licenses and birth certificates filed with the state Department of Health’s Vital Statistics System.”
Here’s the problem Mike, these are the guidelines now Mike, not the ones from 1961 when Obama was actually born. These guidelines mean nothing to me Mike, find the ones from 1961 and then you might have an argument. This means nothing, absolutely nothing.
Then you reference this from a Hawaiian Official saying that Obama was born in Hawaii:
“STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
Can you please point out the line that says that he verified Obama was born in Hawaii? I might be blind, but I can not see it in this statement.
I see where it says that he has verified that there is a Birth Certificate on file, but not where he says that the on file Birth Certificate states Obama was born in Hawaii.
Maybe you didn’t link the right statement, because I have seen this statement and it definitely DOES NOT state Obama was born in Hawaii.
Then you reference some article that states this:
“Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”
This is the closest you come to proving your point Mike, but here’s my problem with this so called statement;
Where’s the “telephone interview” or “email”?
All you have here is a quote from someone that is in an article that we all know could have been an answer to any question the reporter asked. Let me hear the tape, or see the email Mike.
Again, I will state, this is the closest anyone has come to prove that a Hawaiian Official verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii. I will give it some weight, but until I see the email, or hear the telephone interview to hear exactly what this spokeswoman says, only some weight is all this merits. It is not conclusive proof. How hard would it have been for the author of this story to post the actual phone call, and email? Not very hard would be my assumption. Why didn’t he post these things Mike?
The Statement above by Dr. Fukino, is still the statement I will go by.
Good try though.
Then you try to answer my question of what proof you have by posting this:
“See above – birth certificate, announcement of birth, Hawaiian officials. And you mean “evidence”, not “proof”. Proof is for mathematicians.”
Well you see Mike, being public school educated; I would say that evidence is proof in people’s mind, one way or the other. You want to play games here, and it shows just how desperate you are Mike.
Then you answer my adoption question by commenting this:
“Who the hell cares? It wouldn’t affect his citizenship one iota, because under American law, a minor child’s citizenship cannot be renounced by the child or the parent (or step-parent, in this case), and citizenship of a natural-born citizen cannot be removed by the marriage of a parent. To wit, I refer you to the US Nationality Act of 1940, which states in Section 401:”
I care Mike; Obama did live in Indonesia for 5 years right? Obama would have had to adhere to Indonesian laws, would you not agree Mike? Or maybe you don’t agree, because Indonesian law in 1961 stated that Obama could not have been a citizen of Indonesia and have duel citizenship with ANY country. So, in my opinion, Obama was an Indonesian citizen when Lolo enrolled him in school as an Indonesian citizen, Mike, and in the law of the country that he lived Mike, Obama was no longer a United States citizen. This whole law that you reference is pretty quirky anyway Mike. The law says this:
“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States”
This kind of contradicts itself doesn’t it? It says:
“or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person”
And then it says this:
“Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States”
This confuses me, you know me not being a lawyer and all, I don’t understand this gobbly gook.
So what I take this as saying is that Obama would have been an Indonesian citizen until he returned to the US in 1971, when he acquired permanent residence in the United States. If this is the case, then Obama would have to be a “naturalized citizen” and no longer a “natural born citizen”.
Big difference between “naturalized” and “natural born” Mike.
But again, I would contend that IF Lolo adopted Obama, which it seems he did, Obama would no longer be a “natural born” citizen. This disqualifies him from being President Mike. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.
Then you answer my passport question with this:
“The one issued by the United States, I imagine. I believe that you’re referring to erroneous belief that there was a ban on US citizens going to Pakistan in 1981; unless the journalists involved in this piece from the New York Times at the time also all had Pakistani passports, you don’t really have a leg to stand on:”
I have a problem with your “I imagine” Mike. What kind of evidence is that? It is proof of NOTHING Mike. And I didn’t even refer to anything; you assume that I was referring to a “ban” which there never was Mike. But I do know this Mike, Pakistan was under Martial Law in 1981, and from the article you posted it states that you could have a long wait getting in to the country, so again Mike I’ll ask, where’s your proof Obama used a US passport to travel to Pakistan?
Oh I’m sorry, you “imagine”. That may be good enough for you Mike, but to me this is nothing. A big nothing too.
Then you answer my scholarship and grant question with this:
“Not unless they routinely hand them out to US citizens.”
Great evidence Mike, just spectacular proof that Obama didn’t receive scholarships or grants designated for foreign students.
Have you thought about being a lawyer Mike? You might find one person that would trust you to represent them, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Then when I asked about Obama Sr’s race on the Certification of Live Birth, you state this:
“Because that is the answer he gave. Hawaii asks what race they self-identify as, and uses that. From FactCheck.org:”
Then you reference Factcheck, like that’s a reliable source Mike. That would stand up in a court of law Mike, “Because that is the answer he gave.”
That kind of sounds like, “because I said so”. It doesn’t make it true Mike; I’d like to see what Obama’s “original” Birth Certificate has on it. There are plenty of white “Africans” also Mike, ever been to South Africa? “African” is not a race Mike, it’s a nationality, and even for this public school educated person, I know the difference.
Then you comment this:
“The short version, IB, is that your ideas have been judged and found wanting in light of all the evidence. Will you in fact be an adult, acknowledge that you were wrong, and get on with your life? Or will you continue in your folly, beating a dead horse? Your call.”
I’m going to continue with the beating Mike, because you have not given one bit of conclusive proof that Obama was
1. Born in Hawaii, although I will give you credit for the article where the Hawaiian spokesperson says “That’s what he’s saying”, I hadn’t seen that before, but still not conclusive proof, because I do not trust reporters, and the email and interview could have easily been posted with the article.
2. That Obama was not adopted by Lolo. The laws you reference does not state that Obama would retain “natural born” citizenship, only that he would not lose his “naturalized” citizenship.
3. That Obama used a US passport when he traveled to Pakistan. Your “I imagine” just does not cut it with me.
4. That Obama didn’t receive scholarships or grants designated for foreign students. On this subject you offer NOTHING.
So Mike, you want to try again?
And Mike, this time try it without the labels, and name calling. I am not a “birther” Mike, and I don’t wear a “tin foil hat”, and I’m not “stupid” either or a “conspiracy theorist”, or a “wingnut” as you want to label me. I am a twenty year veteran of the US Army Mike, who took an Oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. I feel as if that is all I am doing Mike. I took my oath seriously, as did a whole bunch of other folks, and if you can’t argue your points without the name calling and labeling, then you sir, are a waste of my time.
Your argument holds more weight when you just stick to the FACTS without the rhetoric.
How about answering this while you’re at it:
Why doesn’t Obama just release the documents?
Try that one without answering with “Because he doesn’t have too”.
January 18, 2009 at 4:41 pm
JAMES
IB: He does have to releae them, because, we the taxpayers want assurance that we have not been duped by George Soros and others who are footing the bill for this charade.
January 18, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
Sorry about the long post.
January 18, 2009 at 4:42 pm
JAMES
IB: All very valid points– if it takes twnety posts to get the answer, so be it
January 18, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Interested Bystander
Mike,
If I might, I have one more question;
Just suppose for one minute that Obama releases the documents, and they prove that he is not eligible, what are you going to do then?
If they prove that he is eligible, I will just ask why didn’t he release them sooner?
You seem to be the one painting yourself in a corner, not me.
January 18, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
I agree with you, you know if we would have taken Clinton’s word about “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”, then Clinton would not have been impeached.
And that was a lot less serious than this is.
All of this legal crap just makes me more interested in the questions being asked.
The more he hides, the more people will come looking for it.
Mike only gives Obama hope that people will just forget about it.
Well he’s sadly mistaken, until these documents are released, we’ll keep asking questions.
January 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Interested Bystander
Lottie,
You posted a reply on the other blog that stated this:
“Lottie said
19. January 2009 at 2.16 am
Good post! IB has replied to you over there. He seems to be one of those who doesn’t read all the words, though.”
What words did I not read Lottie?
I thought I gave the hubbie some credit for that one article. The rest of the stuff he posted, just isn’t relevent to the questions I asked.
He does seem to like to call people names and label them though.
Maybe you should give him “time out” for that.
January 20, 2009 at 8:42 am
Interested Bystander
Lottie,
I see you are fighting your husbands fight for him. What a good wife.
You comment this over on the other site:
“Lottie said
20. January 2009 at 5.09 am
Interested Bystander, I am not going to coddle you (sound familiar?). You can address me here or not at all.
And you can save your shots about our age difference. We’ve heard them all and yours is not original. It doesn’t leave you much room for whining over personal insults, either. It also speaks volumes to your maturity (ring another bell?). But then, so does using a sock puppet to talk to yourself and validate your own comments.”
I will not answer you on your blog, for the simple fact that you do not DESERVE it. I see you come over here, and I admit to visiting your blog, but I have done it for the last time.
I totally agree with this statement that is posted on YOUR blog:
“29,144 people have wasted some time here since 4th November 2007”
Your blog is a waste of time. I will not be visiting again.
I do not believe anyone would think that I was making light of our age difference Lottie, you see, I have no idea how old you are, or how old Mike is. I was commenting on your maturity, or lack there of. You see, people who can not argue their points in a reasonable way, result to calling names as Mike did. I put one line about showing your MATURITY, and you read in that one line, that I am making light of some “age difference”, which I didn’t bring up one time in my whole comment.
I suppose asking legitimate questions is being a “birther” or “wearing a tin foil hat” (whatever that means), or being a “wing nut” or “stupid”, which among other things, is what Mike called me.
In my comment back to Mike, I didn’t lower myself to that kind of argument.
And you’re right Lottie; it “speaks volumes to your maturity”. Thank you for acknowledging that you agree that I am arguing legitimate points without the name calling.
Maybe you are making progress Lottie.
Now Lottie, would you care to make Mike’s points for him?
He didn’t do very well.
February 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Ed Darrell
Pakiston in 1981 was a “close ally” with the U.S., then in the Reagan administration. The U.S. supplied the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan with a lot of arms and money, funneled through Pakistan with the explicit approval of Pakistan’s government. Regardless the details, the U.S. and Pakistan were allied at the time. The only places on Earth where citizens of the U.S. have been banned for travel by the U.S. have been North Korea, the Peoples Republic of China, and Cuba.
Traveling to Pakistan on a U.S. passport would have been absolutely no problem.
So what’s your kick? No one has offered a shred of evidence to suggest Obama was in Pakistan on anything other than a U.S. passport, his or his mother’s.
February 20, 2009 at 4:29 pm
JAMES
Nor has anyone shown a shred of evidence that he held one at the time of his travels. A pleasant phone converstaion with the Registrar’s office at Occidental is enough to give one the feeling that a concerted effort has been undertaken to make sure the public odes not know how he was registered, etc. Enough said to lead one to the conclusion that some of the presumptions are indeed factual. And Pakistan was not making it easy to enter on US Passports at the time, as you state. It was far easier for a man of Muslim roots (yes, I know he converted later) to enter on his Indonesian passport.
February 21, 2009 at 4:44 am
Ed Darrell
There is a rebuttable presumption presented by the fact that he travelled, by the fact of his U.S. citizenship, and further supported by the existence of State Department files on the U.S. passport he holds (which we know because of the story of the screwup in which Obama’s passport files were accessed incorrectly).
Now, it would be possible to dream up a scenario by which that passport magically went away. But neither you nor anyone else has presented evidence of any such incident. Put yourself in the position of a judge having to rule on whether to let a lawsuit go forward on the evidence you’ve presented (assuming standing, which of course has never been demonstrated): On the one hand we have the statement and actions of the U.S. State Department, the FBI and the CIA, that there’s nothing amiss with Obama’s passport. On the other hand we have your speculation, wholly unsupported by any evidence, not even an affidavit of a problem from . . . from anyone.
You’ve got no case.
Was Pakistan making it difficult to get visas in 1981? Again, suddenly I’m from Missouri: Show me. The Reagan administration had just promised a big chunk of money, and travel for U.S. citizens was not restricted formally in any way that I can find. While the nation was not a tourist mecca, neither is there evidence of travel restrictions by either side (check the newspapers of the time).
February 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm
JAMES
Ed: The bottom line, no matter ow one tries to twist it is that this manpromised a transparent candidacy, and administration. Yet, the Obama White House has a RAT put into the stimulus package that will keep the solicitor general’s of each agency in the executive branch from being able to pursue corruption investigations within the agency. This is an overbroadening of the executive branch, and the liberals had the nerve to blast George Bush!!
It is plain and simple that Obama is guilty of perptuating a fraud by not releasing the items that would resolve this issue. Courts have held it is the perpetuating of a fraud even if Obama is correct, becuase he could have easily resolved it.
February 22, 2009 at 5:15 am
Ed Darrell
There is no issue. There is no issue possible unless and until you come up with some extraordinary information to refute the presumptions already established. All the legal documents verify Obama’s eligibility. All of them.
No matter how much you wish it were different, it is so. Obama’s not going to do anything on an issue that doesn’t exist. You’re not going to get into court on an issue that doesn’t exist (courts can deal only with real cases and controversies, not conjecture).
There is no issue.
February 22, 2009 at 9:19 am
JAMES
Not one of them verify his eligibility becuase, after all, they are unavailabe to the public for vetting purposes. And his Occidental records will undoubtedly show something, given the information leaking from there. Also appears that some records may be forthcoming from the California Assembly on the grants they issued in 1979-1980– some public records cannot be silenced.
And your statment of “no issue” underscores the beauty of our judicial system: where your legal eyes see no issue, my legal eyes do, and it would be up to an arbiter of the law to decide which set of legal eyes were closer to 20/20 vision.
February 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Ed Darrell
To the contrary, each of the six different records I cite are fully available to the public and have been for years, creating a rebuttable presumption that you have not overcome. Unless you can show that the State Department, and FBI, and CIA, and Illinois Bar, and U.S. Senate, all dropped the ball, you’ve got no case, no reason to argue anything. Whining in the wind without the evidence you lack.
Whatever the evidence from Occidental, it cannot invalidate his birth in Honolulu, which makes him a “natural born” citizen.
You ignore all the other public records, what makes us think you won’t ignore these private records, even if you can get your hands on them?
If you do indeed have “legal eyes,” you understand what a rebuttable presumption is, and you understand what will be necessary to overcome it.
And you know you don’t have it, nor does anyone else.
What do your legal eyes say about “nuisance suit?” If there were extraordinary evidence, I have little doubt a court would strive to find standing. But without a showing to evidence your claim, no court is going to authorize a fishing expedition in violation of a citizen’s right to privacy, contrary to what the public record shows — not even if that citizen is the president.
Where is the extraordinary evidence? You hope it might show up from Occidental College, but you don’t know. No wonder all the other suits have been dismissed. What sane judge would accept “we don’t have any evidence, but if you let us get into the file cabinets, we’re sure we can find something?”
February 22, 2009 at 4:31 pm
JAMES
Even if he was born in Hawaii, his British citizenship creates a problem for him as well; then there is still the issue of an Indonesian passport potentially used by the President as an adult. You see, if he would simply be the transparent administration he had promiesed, this could all be a closed matter in less than an hour. Furthermore, often the most damning evidence is found during discovery… now I am sure you are well aware of that!
Bottom line: Obama should open up his records!
February 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Ed Darrell
Dual citizenship is only a problem, legally, if there is an interpretation that it somehow changes the “natural born” status. There are decisions and statutes on that particular issue — it was considered a problem in the 19th century only if the foreign parent was a government official or employee. Barack Obama’s father was a private citizen. Ergo, his dual citizenship is no issue.
What Indonesian passport? The State Department’s files indicated it was a U.S. passport (remember the breach earlier this year?) There is no evidence Obama used an Indonesian passport, nor is it likely he would have since his mother maintained her U.S. passport and citizenship. Especially, there is no extraordinary evidence of Obama’s having an Indonesian passport, not enough to overcome the rebuttable presumptions created by the State Department’s actions, the FBI and CIA investigations, and the investigation by the Illinois Bar.