OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Actually, YOU must prove he is not. And the Natural Born Citizen argument doesn't cut it either. The Constitution is completely silent on that issue, but that are plenty of court cases and legal commentaries which are not. de Vattel is sometimes quoted by those who support your arguments. But refusing to look at other positions and other commentators and refusing to admit that this is a grey idea invalidates your arguments. May I suggest Lynch v. Clark, 3 N.y. Leg. Obs.236,1 Sand. Ch.583 (1844). That decision confirms that a child born to Canadian parents in 1819 does indeed retain American citizenship, even though her parents took her back to Canada. There is a long discussion on the "common Law" at the time. A direct quote: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor..." The discussion continues about the difference in American common law on this point and European common law. Another quote: "...I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen." Or you might be interested in the opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates, given in 1862. "We have NATURAL BORN citizens (Constitution 2,5) not made by law or otherwise, but BORN. And this class is the large majority...As they became citizens in the natural way, by BIRTH, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their OWN voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to DECEITIZENISE a citizen, who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal practice of adoption." And later: "And our Constitution, in speaking of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society,that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are NATURAL members of the body politic. If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, PRIMA FACIE a citizens; AND HE WHO WOULD DENY IT MUST TAKE UPON HIMSELF THE BURDEN OF PROVING SOME GREAT DISENFRANCHISEMENT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERRIDE THE "NATURAL BORN' right as recognized in the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive." And later:" And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation were it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the ALIENAGE of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10,1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provdies that "persons,"..."Persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered are are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.".....But for that act, children of our citizens who happen to be born at London, Paris, or Rome, while their parents are there on a private visit of pleasure or business, might be brought to the native home of their parents, only to find they were aliens...." And later: "It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever heritary. It never "passes by descent." It is as original in the child as it was in his parents.".... You will find, over and over, that the terms "natural born" and "native-born" are used interchangeably. And these are only two of the many cases and commentaries that have been made on the subject. Plenty more are available.

Obama won the election and he is now President.

GET OVER IT!

The President is under no obligation to show you his birth certificate or to prove anything to you. In any case, a copy is available online at factcheck.org.

To Beth-Wade:

You are incorrect. First, the burden of proof to establish Obama's Natural Born Citizen status should not fall on a mere citizen such as myself. Obama is a public figure who purports to be the President of the U.S. He has a responsibility to all citizens to produce adequate documents to prove he is legitimate and eligible for the office. We have never had a President who was so dishonorable as to refuse to produce such evidence in the past so there are no laws that require the President to prove he is legitimate. Nevertheless, Obama places the security of our nation at risk by allowing doubts regarding his legitimacy to continue and he has a responsibility to put all questions to rest.

In so far as your discussion of Obama's citizenship status is concerned. Obama has caused all of this discord by hiding information that reasonable citizens believe they have a right to see. Items such as proof of his US Citizenship, natural born citizen status, proof he has done nothing in the past to give up citizenship, etc. These are legitimate questions that Obama should freely disclose if he is not hiding something.

McCain was asked to prove his birth & citizenship status and he did it freely and promptly as an honorable man should do. He did not hide behind dozens of lawyers in attempts to keep the American public from knowing the truth about him. Obama should do no less.

Dear Barry...or what ever your name is...What is it LEGALLY anyway?

You have been UNLAWFULLY elected to the highest office in the land. If you feel you won this election fair and square, you could settle it in a matter of minutes.

SHOW YOUR LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE..not that fake piece of trash you have posted on the internent that most wouldnt print off and wipe there..well never mind that part.

Until you prove who you really are and that you are indeed an American..born in America..as you claim...EVERY THING YOU DO IN OFFICE IS ILLEGAL.

IS THERE AN AG IN THE HOUSE OR A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WITH ANY BALLS TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION?

This site has been rigged so that the posts asking for Obama to support transparency by providing his own birth certificate, health records and college records are not properly counted.

It is possible to review this site to find the most rquested ideas by scanning "Top Rated" posts.

According to the liars running this website the most requested item has NOT been Obama;s birth certificate.

(My email is ricardomigrant@aol.com - inlcude your email address if you want me to reply to you)

Actually, I am not incorrect on this issue. President Obama provided information sufficient to have the birth certificate illustrated officially certified by the state of Hawaii, and your elected officials did certify the election results.These are the constitutionally provided methods. This was enough to legally prove his eligibility. If you wish to make unsupported claims based on rumors and speculation, the burden of proof lies on you. You have no more standing or reason to demand any of the documents you are demanding than you have to demand to enter his bedroom and search his underwear drawer.

To Beth-Wade:

Sorry Beth, you are completely incorrect. First, the State of Hawaii has never officially certified Obama's birth certificate nor have they certified that the document he posted on the internet is correct and has not been altered.

Here is what was actually stated by the State of Hawaii. "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," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

"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," Fukino said.

At first glance it seems that Hawaii has certified that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, this is not the case. The document Obama posted on the internet is a Certificate of Live Birth (CLB). In the 1960's when Obama was born, Hawaii issued certificates of live birth to any child born to parent who had been resident in Hawaii for at least one year. The parents could be foreign students and the child would still get a CLB. The child could be born in Kenya or Mars and still get a CLB. The CLB does not prove a child was born in Hawaii or the USA or that the child is a US Citizen.

The State of Hawaii has not "Officially Certified" any Obama birth record. They have only stated that there is some sort of document on file. It is entirely possible the document they have on file was obtained fraudulently and is invalid.

For some inexplicable reason Obama chose to "prove his US citizenship" by producing a document that does not prove citizenship. This is one reason that questions still abound regarding Obama's citizenship status.

Moreover, there is considerable evidence that Obama was actually born in Kenya. There are Obama relatives in Kenya who have stated they were present in Kenya in the delivery room when he was born.

There is much more evidence that Obama was born in Kenya but I won't go into it here for brevities sake. Suffice it to say that there is enough evidence that he was not born in Hawaii for a reasonable person to ask for additional "proof".

The best evidence available is Obama's actual long form birth certificate. This document shows the name of the hospital he was born in, the doctor who delivered him, the signiture of the hosptital administrator, etc. Hospital birth certificates are sent directly to the state for recording so they are almost impossible to fraudulently obtain. If Obama actually has a long form hospital birth certificate all he needs to do is produce it and 99.99% of the questions regarding his citizenship will immediately disappear. Unfortunately, Obama has spent millions of dollars to keep from having to produce his long form hospital birth certificate.

I ask you, Why?, Why would Obama refuse to provide his hospital BC despite dozens of lawsuits and millions of people asking questions? Clearly, the only logical answer is that he does not have a long form hospital birth certificate.

"AH-HA!!!" You may say. "Now I've got you. Didn't you just quote the state of Hawaii where they stated they'd seen Obama's BC? If the BC is impossible to forge then Obama must be legit. End of story!!"

Well, I wish it were so. Unfortunately, what the State of Hawaii said created more questions than it answered. First, note that the State of Hawaii did not say that Obama had a Hospital Generated Long Form Birth Certificate and they ahd seen it. They simply stated they had seen his birth certificate. Were they referring to the short form document Obama posted and which I have already shown does not prove Obama was born in the USA? Or, were they perhaps referring to a birth certificate that was issued to a child who was not born in a hospital? They do not say.

Each year, millions of babies are born outside of hospitals. Some are born at home. Some are born in taxicabs. Some are born on the top of a mountaintop or under a bridge. The point is that every baby born in the USA is not born in a hospital delivery room with cameras running, dozens of witnesses swearing they witnessed the birth, reams of hospital records to show that the hospital operating room was occupied by the mother on that date, etc. Very often, a baby is born and the only witness is the mother herself.

Because there are not always witnesses to a birth (other than the mother) every state in the US has some sort of procedure to grant a birth certificate to a baby born outside a hospital. In Hawaii, all that was necessary if a child was born outside a hospital was for the mother to go to the health department and file a sworn affadavit that the baby was born at home on such and such a day.

In the case of a born at home birth certificate it is trivially easy for a parent to commit fraud and file for and obtain a fraudulent birth certificate for a child. All the parent needs to do is sign a document and lie and state the baby was born at home.

Because born at home birth certificates are so easy to obtain fraudulently the courts allow them to be challenged if there is evidence that the baby was not actually born under the circumstances claimed (for example, if there is evidence the supposedly born at home baby was actually born in Kenya).

Obama claims to have been born in a Hawaiian hospital but his lawyers have prohibited every Hawaiian hospital from confirming or denying that he was born in the hospital? What, I ask you, could possibly be Obama's motive for refusing to allow a hospital to simply verify that he was born at the hospital and nothing else?

Clearly, there is no logical reason Obama would refuse to let a hospital simply verify he was born there other than the fact that if every hospital in Hawaii verified that he was not born in their hospital it would be possible to prove that Obama lied when he said he was born in a Hawaiian hospital.

Because Obama has gone to such lengths to prohibit anyone from being able to verify that he was actually born in Hawaii any reasonable person has to question the truthfulness of Obama's statement that he was born in Hawaii. Obama's own actions are the most damning evidence against him.

Obama has lived much of his life in the USA and he must have some sort of document that shows he is a legal resident or citizen. The question is, is the document a forgery? Was it fraudulently obtained as a result of his mother perjuring herself by claiming her Kenyan born son was born in Hawaii? Or, is it legit?

If the BC was an out and out forgery the State of Hawaii would have said there was no document on file. So, we can pretty much assume that Obama has some sort of docuement saying he was born in Hawaii. However, if the BC said he was born in a Hawaiian hospital there would be no rational reason for him to hide the BC.

What does that leave us with? Well, the only thing left is a real BC that says he was born at home. If Obama has a real BC that says he was born at home the State of Hawaii could truthfully say, as they have, that "the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".

OK, because Obama is going to such lengths to keep hospitals from verifying her was born in a hospital we know he must have lied when he said he was born in a hospital. Because he's been able to get a DL, attend college, etc we know he must have some document that indicates he was born in Hawaii. The only alternative remaining is that he actually has a BC that says he was born at home and not in a hospital as he has claimed.

OK, so, what's wrong with having a born at home BC? Answer, nothing at all. Most Presidents born before the 1930's or so were born at home and there's no reason that a President would try to hide the fact that he was born at home if he was actually born at home.

Since Obama has gone to great lengths to hide the fact that his BC says he was born at home and there is no valid reason for him to do this we must conclude that he has a born at home BC that the State of Hawaii thinks is correct (hence their statement that they have one on file) but that the BC was actually obtained fraudulently by Obamas mother to hide the fact that he was actually born in Kenya.

Logically, it is difficult for any rational person to arrive at a logical explanation for Obama's actions to hide his BC other than what I have explained above. Unfortunately, as you point out, logic is not proof and, because Obama has so successfully stolen and hidden all proof that his BC was fraudulently obtained we are left only with the logical certainty that it is highly difficult to understand how he can have a legitimate BC and yet spend millions of dollars to keep it secret.

There is no doubt that Obama is hiding something and it is higly likely that the something is that he was born in Kenya and is thus ineligible to be president.

Now, you say that I have no more right to ask to see his BC than I do to rummage thru his underwear drawer. I must disagree. There is no valid reason for me to want to rummage thru his underwear drawer and I have no right to do so. Hence, I cannot rummage thru his underwear drawer. However, every citizen must be concerned that their president is not constitutionally ineligible, that he is not illegitimate, that he is not a usurper, that he is not a perjurer, and that he is not a felon. If Obama actually has the fraudulently obtained born at home BC that logic dictates he must have then is all of the above and much more.

If Obama has illegally usurped the Presidency he has placed the nation at great risk. He cannot legally order the military to defend the country. None of his laws are valid. He has disenfranchised more than half the electorate by conning them into voting for an ineligible person. This cannot be tolerated.

Obama is not a private citizen and he cannot be afforded the rights of a private citizen to place his own personal rights and privacy over the legitimate need of the people to know that their president is (to quote Nixon) "Not a Crook". He is the President and he must put the nations interest over his own.

If Obama is legitimate then it should be easy for him to prove this by supplying a few documents. If he is illegitimate he must resign immediately before he does permanent damage to our national security, laws, and constitution. There is no other alternative.