This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 26, 2008 4:58 AM. The previous post in this blog was Don't let the door hit you. The next post in this blog is Your tax dollars at work. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Was Obama born in Africa?

I gave McCain a hard time a while back for being born outside of U.S. territory -- calling into question whether he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States and thus eligible to be President. Here's someone who accuses the Democratic Presidential nominee of having a more serious eligibility problem.

Comments (37)

Lawyers love rules and the fine grinding of evidence. Why don't we let them sort this out? It shouldn't take more than ten or twelve years.

Berg has additional evidence that the birth certificate was a forgery, including the fact that there is no record of his birth in any hospital in Hawaii.

Sigh. This was debunked JUST THIS WEEK, Jack. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed that you would choose to run something like this.


What a waste of time and effort.

I personally believe Obama is an American citizen and Berg's lawsuit is just for harrasment (he is a Hillary supporter). But, just because some website called Factcheck said they investigated and found the claims bogus means nothing to me.


Could he have been transported to Hawaii after birth and a birth certificate was obtained?

"The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate".

So what hospital was he born in?

This is a perfect example of how the republican smear machine works. Shame on you for participating.

Republican smear machine?

The guy is either a citizen or not.
Suppose there is no record of a hospital birth and he was in fact born in Kenya?

Everyone should just let that slide because it would be too smearing to uphold such a significant law?

Besides, what's the big deal? Hillary is on stand by.


As a prerequisite to participation in this argument, I would like every commenter in this post to prove their own US Citizenship to everyone's satisfaction.

Of course I'm not serious, but think about how difficult this actually is for anyone who is a citizen by birth. If even a certified birth certificate is dismissable as potentially forged... well, down that road lies madness.

OK, Alan. I've got a US passport, and that qualifies as proof of US citizenship. At least, until they come and take it away.

As for Obama: this seems like a substance-free exercise, since his American citizen mother would qualify him as a natural-born US citizen under almost all imaginable circumstances (whether or not he was born in the US, and whether or not his parents were "married" at the time). There would be little incentive for this elaborate scheme to fabricate documents showing Hawaii as his birth place.


I don't think having an American mother (or father) makes you "natural-born." They went through that whole exercise with McCain, who had two American parents. That alone didn't get him off the hook.

I'd like to know who the plaintiff is aligned with, McCain or Hillary, before we assume it is a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

It's not that complicated, Mike. We have two kinds of citizens: "natural-born" and "naturalized". I don't think there was anything else that got McCain off the hook than his natural citizenship status. The rest was hot air.

I was born in Hawaiii and the original records of my birth were destroyed by fire; thank God they were microfiched or I do not know what I would do to obtain certified copies of my certificate.

Berg's lawsuit is just for harrasment (he is a Hillary supporter)

This is a perfect example of how the republican smear machine works.

...Hillary supporter...

...republican smear ...


Is it time for tinfoil hats, or are people talking out of orifices that don't have teeth?

Title 8 of the US Code at section 1401 (h)provides guidance and states that a person born outside US territory to an alien parent and a US citizen is a natural citizen if the parent who is the US citizen lived in the US for a total of at least 5 years, two of which were while over the age of 14. I thought the argument about McCain was hot air and so is this suggestion. Since his mother married his father at 18 in Hawaii, and was born in Kansa and appears to have lived solely in the US until getting married at 18, at least under the US code, he is a natural citizen, regardless of this nonense about being born in Africa. Can we please get back to the regularly scheduled propaganda.

That was supposed to be Kansas, not the alien nation of Kansa.

Title 8 of the US Code at section 1401 (h)

It doesn't matter what the statutes say -- the "natural born" requirement is in the Constitution, and Congress can't change it by statute.

The key question -- indeed, the only question -- is what the Constitutional language means.

FactCheck is a well-respected nonpartisan site that attacks erroneous assertions in both parties' campaign ads. If they sent people to look at the birth certificate and have determined it's genuine, then that settles it for me.

You can't absolutely prove that Obama is a U.S. citizen, or anyone else for that matter. As Alan pointed out, birth certificates can always be forged. But if we stop accepting birth certificates as proof of citizenship, then virtually nobody can prove they are a citizen.

This lawsuit has no merit. It's a despicable move by someone who is upset that their favorite didn't win the primary. I hope he gets laughed out of court. As someone who is too far left-wing to ever have his favorite win the primary, I wish the ultra-disgruntled Clinton supporters would learn to deal.

Jack: Isn't the question was he a citizen at birth? To answer that question you get into the old intention of the framers debate, since there do not appear to be any Supreme court cases defining "natural born citizen". Did they intend to mean only born in the original United States, (which at that time probably only included the first 13 states, so a lot of us would be left out). Or did they intend to mean only born to one or more US citizens. Or did they intend to mean as determined by the laws of citizenship as promulgated by the Congress and in effect at the time of birth.
But I generally agree with Rulial that it's just another offensive intended to sow seeds of doubt about the guy, regardless of the accuracy of the underlying information.

Jack, the Constitutional language means whatever 5 members of SCOTUS says it means. And that of course can change depending on who the 5 members are.

It isn't a perfect system but it sure keeps a lot of us employed.

Media Matters for America, Aug 26, 2008 -- WorldNetDaily.com, the right-wing website ..., decided to look into a claim ... made repeatedly in right-wing blogs and on talk radio -- that the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama "has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website" -- and reported that it was false. In an August 23 article, WND reported that "FactChecker.org [sic] says it obtained Obama's actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real," and added, "A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic."

What a hoot! The rightwing echo chamber opens a small window hole that lets the least truth in the bubble, and the echoes die. Speechless parrots. Hoot! Hoot! Hoot!

In similar abandoning-ditto-dunces fashion, LIARS Larson interviewed a vivacious young Washington,DC-based GOP 'staffer' today, on-air, who said public monies should be "delegated" (she meant 'appropriated') differently -- cut military waste, ("the Iraq war is for nothing"), and fund public schools and education. She also said she was voting for Obama.

(She's the only current GOP voice LIARS can 'get' -- he 'got' Giuliani after her, blathering meth-mouth mumblefast, ol' used-to-be-somebody once upon a long-ago day ... before his third divorce and federal indictment. LIARS interviewed Greg Kafoury today, too, who is touting Nader with the interesting polling statistic that Nader takes most votes from McCain. Hoot! Hoot!)

After the post-graduate college Republican co-ed, all 10 of LIARS listeners faxed in his reading that "She's a liar" and "She's not a conservative." (And 'they' are, presumptively, with a copyright on the 'conservative' branding ... although intellectual property protections can never apply to cover that claim.)

All the LIARS folks have to be in denial, lying to themselves, when the GOP 'centers' itself and exposes the extremist LIARS wackos as the fascists-without-followers that they are. The GOP platform document already drafted for approval in Convention next week, states that global warming is real, "caused by human activity," and the GOP policy principle is to govern to mitigate global warming.

The real Oregon Republicans (in the mold of Maureen Neuberger, Wayne Morse, Tom McCall, Barbara Roberts), are cutting their losses and sending into exile the religio-kook anti-abortion loser-pervs (Smith, Mabon, Shannon, Atterberry, LIARS). And now have an actual GOP candidate who can beat Wu in the 1st District, (telling sign: Wu's BlewOregon is in high-scared hissy-fit mode): Joel Haugen for Congress, but LIARS can't 'get' him, (to reach out far enough off-balance to contact LIARS extreme).


How many of the framers of the constitution do you suppose were born in the United States of America? How many of the Continental Congress?

Is this lawsuit and matters of this magnitude going to be the extent of debate? We finally have a real choice in this election, and it scares me to think that it is going to be more of the same.

Roy, you're dreaming if you think it's not going to be more of the same. It has been a sales job all the way.

the extent of debate?

There's really nothing to debate. McCain would continue the many Bush disasters -- ill-advised wars, irresponsible tax cuts and deficits, elimination of a once-healthy middle class, more miserable health care (if any) for millions, attacks on civil liberties, Stone Age Supreme Court, the list goes on and on.

You'll have to look for your debate elsewhere. I'm ready to vote.

But I'm also quite interested in the eligibility requirements for the President and Vice President, which don't seem to concern people as much as they should.

Yeah, it concerns people, Jack. But the concern never is aired. Is prevented from being shared among us to ourselves -- simply by the massmedia falsifying what is put on 'the channel,' injected into uniform consciousness or 'what the masses know,' and blacklisting what is not to be known, 'unauthorized' 'unconsecrated' 'un-neutered' individual and combined sincere efforts, and organizing information, made and shared among ourselves. From us / to us / of us communication is deliberately maliciously stifled in the channel.

The easy and first 'resolution of the problem' is to socialize the massmedia, under public control, public funded. As it was when broadcasting began -- it WORKS great! But try passing that 'message' around to convene a quorum. You can't. Especially when, and because the massmedia propaganda control insulates the public and the 'electeds' apart, (and the electeds are the agents necessary to enact 'socializing' the massmedia 'properties').

I hope you enjoy this Ode of Angst as much as I do, identifying with it. (But see, folks under 40 and born after JFK -- the public majority, the quorum -- do not identify with it, and are brain-mushed clueless as to What's happening, How, and Why. Brain-mushed by there having been the eradication of Art and artists. No? Name one.) The Future That Never Comes; The Past That Never Was; The Present Inscrutable, by Gary Corseri, August 26, 2008.

Oops, I got on a tangent from my point ...

The key word is you say it "seems" 'it don't concern people.' That seems word indicates the massmedia makes it ... 'seem.'

The Constitution prohibits the Prez and Vice-Prez ticket to both be from the same State. In 2000, Dumbo's one-man Veep Search Committee was Cheney, and that Committee chose Cheney, himself.

THEN it was pointed out (as Dumbo/Cheney are ignorant) they are unlawful since both were registered in Texas, and people were concerned it was ILLEGAL. So media swept it under the rug, held the story silent for a week; Cheney ran to Wyoming and changed registration, but kept his Texas address, Halliburton HQ, as a '2nd home away from home.' Then the media threw the information and story away, calling it 'old news' (from a week before - move on - forget it - it's been fixed. Right then was the time to publicly stop candidate Dumbo, to emphasize Constitutional eligibility requirements. Dumbo/Cheney spit on the Constitution.)

I just think it is misappraisal to say 'people are not concerned.' The deliberate disempowering propaganda only makes it seem that way. 'Concern' is blacklisted OUT of the massmind channel.

In truth, people still have and retain collective power. The people power, and empowerment, is Art.

Here's another exhibit, same thing. About what concern 'seems' to be -- compare, contrast, Jack, the version you undoubtedly 'heard on the news,' against this truer-informed version: ... assassination plot gets little US coverage, by Michael Carmichael, Global Research, August 26, 2008.

Unsubstantiated reports from Moscow allege that the plot was foiled after the FSB intercepted documents in Georgia describing a project code-named: "Operation Drago" -- an assassination plot that was allegedly engineered by a rogue element of high-ranking Israeli military officials.

Riight....Israel ...Jewish people...hired neo-nazis to assassinate a presidential candidate. It would have more merit if they said Clinton was behind it. And it was foiled by the Russians no less, by "documents" found in Georgia.

But this is the best one....

Ironically, Obama's opponent, John McCain, made a blatant appeal to the racist right by appearing at the massive outlaw biker rally at Sturgis, South Dakota, an annual convention of Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-semites.

Apparently Harley riders are all "Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-semites." Please.

There may be truth behind the assassination plot, but that website is about as nutty as they come.

Thanks for the laugh, Tensk.

The difference between these two issues is that there's no evidence that McCain was born anywhere but in Panama, just as there's no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.

The idea that McCain's ineligible is just as stupid as the idea that Obama is.

Maybe "natural born" should rule out people born via C-section.

Then there's this bit of stupidity from the article:

Several Of Obama's own relatives say he was born in Kenya, and his Mother flew herself and the infant Barack Obama to get his birth registered as if he was born in Hawaii, making him a US Citizen.

He would have been a US citizen anyway, wouldn't he? Or is the idea that his mother wanted to make sure that 47 years down the road that there wouldn't be any question about his being a "natural born" citizen? White woman flying out of 1961 Kenya during the transition from colony to self-rule with a part-black baby, bringing him into the US on -- presumably -- Kenyan papers? Yeah, that sounds plausible.

By the way, FactCheck.org is not neccesarily "neutral" since they are funded by the organization that Ayers and Obama worked with in Chicago on the failed school initiative that Obama was head of. I would not trust them to fully vet anything where Obama is concerned.

There are no records of Obama's mother at either of the two hospitals that could possibly be where he has claimed he was born. Which makes this even more fishy.

He would have been a US citizen anyway, wouldn't he? No. Because the law at the time of his birth was "if only one parent was a citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten year, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." His mother was only 18 when he was born so he would not automatically get citizenship from her.

The bigger issue for me is that he will not release the original birth certificate that shows the NAME on it. By all accounts, he was never called Barak Obama until he wanted to get into Harvard as a legacy (his dad went there). He may not have been born with the funny name but chose it for expedient reasons.

Which reminds me to ask : Are there lots of goat herders that end up at Harvard?

It's really quite simple. It doesn't matter where he was born. His mother was an American citizen.

He could have been born on the moon, and he'd still be a natural-born citizen.

This question was resolved in 1964 when George Romney (Mitt's dad) ran for president. He had been born in Mexico to Mormon missionaries.

It was also resolved, a second time, in 1964 - in the case of Barry Goldwater, who was born (like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson) in a place that later became part of the United States. (Barry was born in Arizona before statehood.)

In John McCain's case, he was born to two American parents. Whether it was on or near a military base is irrelevant.

There are only two kinds of citizens - natural-born and naturalized. If you're naturalized, then you're natural-born.

Until a court of law determines what the Constitution means, it is not settled. Were there any legal challenges to these candidacies on the grounds raised here? You are saying something very much like, "Someone murdered Jimmy Hoffa and got away with it. Therefore, murder is permissible." It doesn't work that way.

If you're naturalized, then you're natural-born.

I'm sure that's not what you meant to say. But even correcting for what you probably meant to say, you don't quite have it right. For purposes of interpreting the Constitution, the modern understanding you describe -- that natural-born means not naturalized -- is not controlling.

There can be TWO different standards, one for the Founders and one for the future generations. These analogies calling on Washington, Adams, etc. make no sense. Of course they weren't born in the United States because it didn't exist. That doesn't mean the Constitution should be stretched and pulled (or more likely, ignored) because of a political party's influence.

I'm with Jack on this one ... let a Court decide what it means, preferably before McCain gets elected and then has to be told that he wasn't eligible in the first place. ;)

There are no records of Obama's mother at either of the two hospitals that could possibly be where he has claimed he was born.

How do you know? Have you checked it out yourself? Or are you just parroting what someone else has told you?

By all accounts, he was never called Barak Obama until he wanted to get into Harvard as a legacy (his dad went there). He may not have been born with the funny name but chose it for expedient reasons.

Right, his father was named Barack Hussein Obama, but on the birth certificate you claim doesn't exist, they called the kid "Barry." That doesn't even make a little bit of sense.

And by the way, the Annenberg Center was established by a grant from a newspaper publisher who just happened to be Nixon's ambassador to Great Britain. Linking it to the Weathermen is something of a long stretch.

Clicky Web Analytics