Monday, November 03, 2008

Debunking the slander about Obama's Citizenship.

Now I wasn't an Obama supporter obviously, being a rather devout Ron Paul fan etc.

But after the past few weeks of arguing with the dishonest insanity I see rampant on Republican and Libertarian discussion groups and mailing lists, I've learned a lot about the facts involved around many of the lies being told about Obama and I have to say that it's given me a lot more respect for the moral high ground his campaign has stuck to.

I wanted to include below a message I sent to one of the groups I'm a part of in response to their several times a day repetition at this point of the lies about Obama's Citizenship. I wanted to illustrate how desperately they keep telling these lies and how little effect it has to show them the facts and the evidence to the contrary.

Excuse my obviously aggravated insults therein, I think if you start reading back through the past few weeks of exchanges, you'll start to understand why I started resorting to using such accurate, if juvenile, monikers to address them.

(In response to Scott saying he was glad he'd signed a petition against Barack Obama challenging his Natural Born Citizen status.)

Because you're an idiot who can't read? Grow up you pathetic child.

I'll illustrate here for everyone how thoroughly I've debunked your childish insistent and desperate lies here.

And for the sake of thoroughness:

Every time you tell this lie again, dishonorable as you are, I'm going to paste this message again from now on showing that you've been told the truth repeatedly but have no interest in the truth or the facts. Only in intentionally trying to spread misinformation and lies to try to win an argument through dishonorable and dishonest means, through scare tactics and slander.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I tried to stop you from saying these stupid lies again.

If you read those you'd know that you're lying (not that you don't already know, which you do. You just don't care because you can't help it but be a stupid liar).

Obama's step-father couldn't have renounced his citizenship and I linked the US Code section a few weeks ago that explicitly stated that fact. MORON.


Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

I've covered this before.

See that? I pointed this out to you THREE WEEKS AGO.

It's pathetically obvious at this point that you have no interest in the truth. You deny all evidence and FACTS presented to you that debunk your lies and desperate conspiracy theories. If you were interested in truth, you would acknowledge things like what I pointed out above and STOP REPEATING THE LIES.


Of course you won't acknowledge that the state government, local government, health department and everyone else there has explained what the difference is between them, why the certificate looks the way it does, even had some of the people their show their certs as well that DID look identical etc.


I've explained all this before and linked you to numerous articles clearly explaining it. You stink of desperation and a pathetic need to flatly ignore the truth when it's right in front of you.

First link is more for Scott to explain the matter of jurisdiction in the case and why Berg's case was so amateur and unfounded. It's pretty embarrassing to read actually (and unlike some people here, I actually read the entire thing.)

Then this one for Aaron about citizenship and travel etc.

Then we move on to the pages that explain the situation:

Having read those, is it starting to sink in yet?

Maybe you need to go back and read them again... and pay close attention.

Let me know how it goes. :)

At this point Aaron has basically resorted to even more pathetic attempts at slander and has challenged me to come fight him in person to force him to be honest. Something that for any mature, rational, intelligent adult would have long since been accomplished by the repeated presentation of the facts, with evidence, with references, and with repeated explanations of the subject matter. As they say, you can lead a horse to water... *sigh*

1 comment:

smrstrauss said...

Re Obama being a natural born citizen.


If you need more ammunition, it is easy to show that the burden of proof is on those who think that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and for them to show it, all they have to do is go to Kenya and find records that Obama's mother had arrived there in 1961 before he was born and left after he was born.

Those should be public records, along with all the other arrivals and departures in 1961. The critics have not produced any such evidence, and unless they do, they are just blowing smoke.

While all we hear about from the anti-Obama crowd is the Berg case, in fact there have been about ten cases and some at least looked at the "evidence" -- and found it absurd.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:

In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)


The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”