There are two ways of looking at this issue of hidden records. One is that the hidden records are reminders of the mainstream media’s failure to properly vet Obama. What did we (and do we) really know about his background? We know what he told us, but even limited fact-checking on that raised serious questions. However, the Left would rather not have the issue presented in this way, so they have tried to delegitimize the issue of the non-vetting of Obama by branding anyone who raises it as a conspiracy fanatic, or “birther.” (Those obsessed with the birth record and who ignore all the other hidden records enable this.) There are real questions about the past of our president, and they persist in large part because the press did not do its job properly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

>>The Hospital, the doctor who signed the required papers, AND the governor…. have all put there careers on the line to verify the facts as they know them.>>

Re: “The Hospital, the doctor who signed the required papers…”

Ummm. Do you have a reference for this? My understanding is that no hospital in Hawaii has a record of his birth, and no doctor so far is indicated.

As for the other statements – Hawaii had different birth recording record forms (and may still have), and as long as the mother had been a citizen of Hawaii for the previous year, the state would register the birth as long as the birth was recorded by _any_ member of the immediate family – which included grandparents. In fact, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian birth certificate, I believe, and she’s _known_ to be born in Indonesia.

Here’s a long discussion on the ins and outs of Hawaiian birth certificates, and why there’s a question about which type Obama has:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t believe he was born here. The “consensus” on this blog is wrong. It is a real issue! He did not attend Columbia at all. His classmates don’t recall him. I remember the heat I took for calling man-made GW a fraud. I take the same heat for claiming Evolutionism is concensus and not science; it is clearly a fraud and a religion. We birthers are not idiots and the integrity of the US Constitution is sacred to us. We love our country the way it is meant to be. I support Palin. It is not about “winning” anymore; it is about the Truth. Hopefully his illegal-alien aunt will require him to show his birth certificate to claim him as an “anchor relative.” She is mad he is ignoring her.
Go BSU!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Not to worry. As ACORN’s Legal Counsel during RICO Act Violations, Obama is likely to be indicted, tried and get some time anyway. Great Legacy. Illegal Use of Federal Block Grant money and money Laundering are Felonies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The dangerous precedent set by ignoring the Natural Born Citizen Constitution issues in regard to Obama could lead to let’s say two Mexican nationals having their child being born in the USA, then returning to Mexico to raise this child as a Mexican nationalist. Now this child grows up, returns to the USA, meets the 2 other requirements to run for President & wins. Now who do you think his loyalties are??? I don’t think the USA. That is why in their wisdom the founding father put the clause that the President has to be a Natural born Citizen, meaning being born in the US to two U.S. Citizens. Yes this is not foolproof, but it would put a credible deterrence for a foreign county from trying it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

B-Bob … You need to read …

Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ eaglewing –

“It goes without saying that Obama came down heavily against our national security in that paper and probably gave props to the Soviets as the keepers of the peace and unfairly warred against by the bad US imperialists. ”

According to the professor who taught the class, his paper was not a polemic, but a historical survey. So your worst assumptions are wrong.

“He may have even cited constructive grass roots activities by his soon to be friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.”

And he may have cited “Hey, Jude” — but there is no evidence that he did that either.

“Ayers was at Columbia during this formative time when Obama was seeking out the most radical leftwing personages there, so there is the strong possibility that he met Killer Bill there.”

Strong possibility? Based on what facts to you conclude there is a “strong possibility”? It is a big school in a big city and Ayers would not have been associated with Obama’s area od study. So based on what facts do you conclude they met?

Honestly . . . are you about to resurrect the “Bill Ayers wrote ‘Dreams of my father’” theory, based on supposed similarities between that book and a book Ayers wrote years later? Because, logically speaking, the Ayers book following Obama’s in time would lead to the conclusion that Obama WROTE AYER’S BOOK, not the other way around!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Max — Let me get this straight — you are relying on an international law treatise that predates the Constitution — not US law, not the law of another country we recognize, but a treatise — to argue that the person elected president of the United States does not qualify, even though he was born in the US (which grants him citizenship) of a US citizen parent (which also would grant him citizenship). And you think we should take this seriously? OK . . . .

It matters not one whit what the “founding fathers” MIGHT have meant when they mentioned “natural born citizen”; and it matters less what Mons. Vattel might have thought about things. But if Congress meant the person had to have two citizens as parents, they could have said that, couldn’t they? But they didn’t. They used the word “citizen” and modified it with “natural born” — distinguishing from a naturalized citizen. Your spin (that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a citizen) would have disqualified many past presidents, all of them elected much closer to the time when the Constitution was adopted. If no court in the 1800s interpreted “natural born citizen” to exclude them, no court would do so now — not based on some random Frenchman’s musings, and not with a president elected by close to 70 million people and by an almost 10 million vote margin. That would be nothing more than an unconstitutional coup. Not gonna happen, son.

@ eaglewing and Max –

Congress will not and cannot remove Obama because he has not engaged in any acts that are high crimes and misdemeanors.” No Article III court has jurisdiction to remove him, obviously, for separation of powers reasons — the same way Obama has not authority to remove an Article III judge!

@ Missy —

As usual, no substantive debate . . . just b.s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

eaglewingz08 …

Wrong about removing a President. The Congress can but we know that will not happen with the Bamster.

However …

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has the jurisdiction to hear a case regarding a President Eligibility … very hard but it can be done.

So ….

The 2010 mid-terms & 2012 Presidential election is VERY important.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@B-Rob:

Ye-essss Brother B-Rob, raise those hands and shout, hail the O-mighty!

Like or Dislike: 0  0