Michelle Malkin » Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right

Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right

By Michelle Malkin • December 5, 2008 06:53 AM

Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Did you know that Sarah Palin-haters are still trying to prove she didn’t give birth to her youngest son, Trig? These tinfoil hat-wearers are as obnoxious and unhinged as the 9/11 Truth cultists who insist that America engineered the jihadi attacks on itself. The presidential campaign may be over, but there’s no expiration date on Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Jack Bogdanski, a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, stirred up Trig Trutherism again this week with a post on his website exposing “Sarah Palin’s fake pregnancy belly.” Armed with frontal photos of Palin’s stomach, Professor Bogdanski declared: “The March 26 photo is the smoking gun. There really is no chance that there’s a baby in there who will be born 23 days later at six pounds birth weight. And there really is no chance that the child grew so suddenly over the following two weeks…Sarah Palin is not the mother.”

We’re all obstetricians now!

This nonsense began with left-wing Internet rumors that Gov. Palin was really Trig’s grandmother and that she was covering up for the “real” mother of Trig – her teenage daughter, Bristol. The conspiracy was hyped by The Atlantic’s resident excitable womb-chaser, Andrew Sullivan, and later amplified by “respectable” journalists like CNN/Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. As the fever swamps roiled, an Alaska TV reporter, Cherie Shirey, stepped forward to squash the paranoia with a statement to the liberal Huffington Post:

“These internet rumors are very bizarre. We worked with Governer Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”

Shirey was ignored. Profile shots of a heavily pregnant Palin taken in April 2008 didn’t satisfy the Fake Belly! mob, either. The disclosure that Bristol was in fact pregnant with her teenage boyfriend’s child did not quell the insanity. Neither did a health assessment from Gov. Palin’s personal physician affirming her five pregnancies nor did contemporaneous hospital accounts of the birth nor did Palin’s accounts of nursing Trig.

It’s only a matter of time before someone accuses Palin of planting fake breast milk on her pump.

The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There’s always a convoluted excuse – some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic “evidence” to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels – that will rationalize irrationality. Palin could produce Trig’s umbilical cord and it still wouldn’t be enough.

Alas, Trutherism thrives on both the left and right. Which brings us to the spate of lawsuits challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.

There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?) And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii. But a dangerously large segment of the birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.

Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?). And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew – not Bush and Cheney – perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?

***

Here’s an excerpt of Philip Berg’s 9/11 Truther manifesto for all of you who have made him your new hero:

“It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. ”

“Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!”

…That an event such as 9/11 was desired by powerful Administration figures, including Cheney and Jeb Bush, the President’s brother, is a matter of record, as the Project for the New American Century’s [PNAC] blueprint for worldwide U.S. dominance entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” stated that the program they advocated could win popular support only with the help of a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” which (we are supposed to believe to be coincidence) came to pass just 8 months after many of the co-signers of the PNAC document assumed high positions in the new Bush Administration in January 2001.

As President John F. Kennedy stated, “Things do not just happen; they are made to happen.” There has never been an investigation of 9/11 that had not concluded, before it even began, that the Official Story convicting Osama bin Laden and absolving the Administration and the military of complicity of anything worse than “intelligence failures,” which thereby made the outcome a foregone conclusion.

It is time that the men who had the motive, means and the opportunity to commit the terrible crimes of 9/11, and who have profited by it politically as well as financially, be exposed for their role and held to account.

The world has suffered since the horrific acts of Bush and his cronies on 9/11, that being the events of 9/11 and the aftermath, the illegal act of war against Afghanistan and Iraq that has caused the death and injury of hundreds of thousands, including thousands of U.S. troops; the destruction of property and the enormous costs involved.

Saddam was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death after being convicted of murder in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims from an Iraqi town where assassins tried to kill him in 1982. This number of killings that Saddam Hussein was found guilty of is far less than Bush and his cronies caused to die on 9/11.

The 148 Iraqi deaths for which Saddam was tried pales in number to the 750,000 dead at the hands of George W. Bush as a result of this illegal invasion of that country which includes babies, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, elderly grandmothers and grandfathers, killed without remorse by George W. Bush and his war profiteering supporters.

Bush continues the war in Iraq to keep the world’s attention there and not on the atrocities caused by him on 9/11, including the possibility of Bush sending up to 40,000 more troops to Iraq, even though a majority of the American people are against this increase.

The world must act now because our own government has failed us. We cannot relent until real justice is reached. Only by exposing the truth of 9/11 and revealing how it was used as the “trigger event” to justify the neocon’s imperial policy can we put these events in proper prospective.”

***

More conspiracy-mongering: A Politico writer speculates that Justice Clarence Thomas distributed Donofrio’s application for conference as some sort of payback for Obama’s opposition to Thomas. Grow up already.

***

Oh, criminey.

Posted in: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Truthers

Regular View

comments (314)

trackbacks (56)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#564720

On December 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, Robroy said:

On December 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm, Jet Jaguar said:
On December 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm, Robroy said:

Does anyone have knowledge or comment on the assertion ( read elsewhere today )that the Twin Towers where built to with stand the impact of a Boeing 707 becuse of the plane incident with the ESB in the 40s ? Any comments or clarifacation would be greatly appreciated .
Robroy,
I poked around and found this on Wikipedia here

Regards…

Aircraft impact

The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[60] In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.[61] NIST found a three page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[62] In 1993, John Skilling recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, “The building structure would still be there.”[63] However, he gave little thought to how the structure would behave in an intense fire that would result from an aircraft impact. They simply assumed that the World Trade Center’s trusses and columns would perform as well as the heavy masonry and steel structure in the Empire State Building.[64]

Thanks Jag !
#564724

On December 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, corona said:

Nice relevant comments – NOT!
#564745

On December 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

To quote Michelle Malkin:

A reminder of Obama’s compassion…for jihadists
#564753

On December 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

It seems to me that the fire was the thing that weakened the towers enough to cause collapse. The structures obviously withstood an impact much greater than a 707 and remained standing. My theory is that the thermal expansion of the joists was a major factor to both initiate outer column buckling and also disengage floor connections to some columns thus lowering their Euler limit.
#564754

On December 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

On December 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, corona said:

Nice relevant comments – NOT!

It wasn’t me!
#564853

On December 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pm, Roger King said:

Say what you want about Obama’s constitutional issue but tell me where the following have been done.
1) Who has actually vetted him for his constitutionality to be a valid president? No one that I know of.
2) Has anyone seen his birthcertificate, not is live birth birth certificate which only means he got to Hawaii within a year of his birth?
3) Why is Obama hiring multiple lawyers to keep his birth certificate and related records from being publicly viewed instead of just releasing them?

If anyone really knows any of these three to really not be true i would love to hear about it at lancelot7@access4less.net

Regards,
Roger
#564869

On December 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pm, dadinseattle said:

Say what you will about this bizarre and surreal situation, one that is actually hard to believe,…beyond the suspension of disbelief if you will.

“We the people” are being deprived of important information.

The systematic effort by internet entities to scrub information detrimental to Obama is occurring, and given the sequestering of any pertinent documents both here and abroad by him what else would alert citizens be expected to believe?

I suggest reading the the bio compiled at the website the Obama files and everyone start to save everything they can on his records before it all disappears.

This man came out of nowhere, he was made and funded by others. These other people do not like America as a free and prosperous society and aim to change it!

It is time to end this charade and quit going along with this subversion, someone with some guts in the MSM needs to step up.

The crazy ones are the ones acting like nothing is wrong,like there is nothing there to see!
#564887

On December 7th, 2008 at 1:55 am, sharrukin said:

This is a ridiculously argued article and Michelle Malkin isn’t a fool.

I have read other article since just as poorly argued. She joins David Horowitz, Michael Medved, Rick Moran, Ed Morrissey, and others. The point is that we are not arguing to overturn a Democratic victory. The victory would go to Senator Joe Biden if Obama were ineligible. This could all be put behind us if Obama would produce the birth certificate for validation. Yet that is the one thing these conservatives all seem almost hysterical to prevent.

I believe that they kinda suspect Obama isn’t qualified and do not want to pay the cost in blood and domestic peace such a discovery would entail.
#564894

On December 7th, 2008 at 2:57 am, love2rumba said:

All this deabte over whether or not Obama is in fact a natural-born citizen is healthy simply for the fact we may well be able to “elect” an illegal alien’s “anchor-baby” in a few years with glowing ties to Mexico (uber alles)…and that too will have profound changes for the country.

At this time however unless Obama does something egregiously uncomfortable or deadly to large enough segments of the US population, the debate over the validity of his ability to meet the presidential requirement of citizenship will be regarded by the average American as moot at best.
#564895

On December 7th, 2008 at 2:58 am, hitcharide said:

I didn’t vote for obummer, can’t stand the man, but am relatively happy now that he’s been elected. We’re about to have four years not unlike the time when carter was president. You’ll see ever-increasing inflation, unemployment, social engineering where it shouldn’t be, and generally all the hallmarks of elitist yet horribly lacking in common sense liberal government. As I see it, a majority of the nation voluntarily chose the worst possible candidate they could, and while I regret that we all must suffer, it gives us the chance to experience a Reagan-like government afterwards (strong hint towards palin/jindal.) I don’t want to hear one single whine out of the idiots who gave us reid and pelosi, failed housing markets, bankrupt lending institutions and the like, because they trumped their poor choices with an ignorant 30 second soundbite whose sole claim to fame appears to be that he’s black! So be it…let the birth certificate issue die, and let’s get our collective a$$es in gear in taking back the house and senate in ‘10, the presidency in ‘12, and along the way, retrieve the American dream, honor, repspect, and family values!
#564927

On December 7th, 2008 at 9:13 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

hitcharide: So be it…let the birth certificate issue die, and let’s get our collective a$$es in gear in taking back the house and senate in ‘10, the presidency in ‘12, and along the way, retrieve the American dream, honor, repspect, and family values!

Yeah, so let’s just ignore the Constitution and let it slide; it’s just a silly requirement anyway right?

As just one example of the benefit of using ANYTHING valid way possible to keep him out of the white house, consider that MILLIONS of innocent lives in the womb stand to be murdered if he manages to pass a federal law rendering all state anti-abortion laws illegal. Say hello again to partial birth abortion. Born alive protection? – out the window; we already know his satanic viewpoint on that issue. Funding? No problem! Spread more wealth to planned parenthood; and throw out statatory rape of 13 year old girls while we’re at it – they have ‘privacy’ too!

‘ILLEGAL’ – it’s not just for aliens anymore…
#564930

On December 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

hitcharide said: We’re about to have four years not unlike the time when carter was president.

I forgot to comment on that one. Yeah, like carter or worse and here we are STILL suffering from that nitwit 30 odd years later! We can thank Carter for things like a nuclear Iran, giving away the Panama Canal and this GSE mess for starters. I for one would rather avoid the possibility of making even more such tragic mistakes.
#565045

On December 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm, dadinseattle said:

Another excellent article posted today by
Douglas J. Hagmann the director of Homelandsecurityus.com website

Along with the MSM, conservative voices are also being called to task for putting down the Americans whom believe our Constitution is being subverted, and do not believe “letting it go” or “letting it be” are prudent actions(inactions) for a critical question.

Michelle, and our radio right leaders are specifically named as part of the tendency lately to dismiss concerned citizens as hopeless conspiracy nuts.

Than he brings up something I too have wondered, is there unprecedented collusion happening behind the scenes in our government(by both sides) and media?

Why this universal sentiment out of left and right voices?

Perhaps most disturbing of all is what I have found while researching this issue, something that requires much more time and space than can be allotted here. There appears to be an unprecedented level of collusion between numerous political power brokers on both sides of the political divide, elected and appointed officials on both the federal and state levels, as well as members of the corporate media. It is interesting if not alarming to take a few steps back in an effort to gain a wider perspective, and finding unusual alliances and political “bed partners” among various members this group.

It is too late to put this genie back in the bottle, something will have to give because the people want the answer to this question in increasing numbers, and we should not “let it go”!
#565090

On December 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm, America1st said:

Just to reiterate the above quote

“Barack Hussein OBAMA, has reportedly spent between $800,000 to close to $1,000,000 (one million dollars), using at least three different law firms to fight these civil actions.

Now, consider that each and every one of the lawsuits filed against him could be immediately dismissed by the mere production of a single piece of paper that is available to him for the paltry sum of $12.50 at a recorder’s office in Hawaii.

Also keep in mind that at this point, OBAMA would likely not even have to make the document public, but provide it to the applicable judge or official for verification purposes to make this controversial maelstrom disappear.

As an investigator and a rational American citizen, I have to ask myself why Barack Hussein OBAMA has chosen not to dispose of this very simple matter in the most logical and expeditious manner possible.
#565102

On December 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pm, hitcharide said:

Yeah, so let’s just ignore the Constitution and let it slide; it’s just a silly requirement anyway right?

You don’t understand. Let me spell it out for you.

The media is in the tank for the left, has been for some time, and will be for some time. Democrats currently have a strong hold on the senate…I could swear I read somewhere they even picked up a seat or two this last cycle. They have an equally strong hold on the house…maybe you’ve read the same. And pardon me, but I believe obummer, the chosen/annointed/he-who-walks-in-the-light won the presidential election.

If obummer were found to have been spawned on the third moon of Antares IV, it would not make one whit of difference as to where this country is headed for the next two years. It’s not ignoring the constitution; if you can make the issue stick, by all means, go for it, but who exactly is going to do the investigation? The house?? The senate?? Other democrats?

I deal with REALITY, and the REALITY is that too many people are idiots who can’t be bothered to take a stand and vote on the issues. Too many special interests, too many who actually believe in hollywood like 30 second commercials promising everything and delivering on none of it. All too often people will not address an evil until it gets so bad and out of control that they are forced into taking action. A lot of people voted for carter for the same myopic and silly reasons; it took four years of misery and hardship for the people to wake up. I fully expect, given his record (or lack of it) that obummer will do such a deplorable job (backed by pelosi and reid) that the American people will finally wake up and move this country back where it should be. I agree the constitution should be supported and enforced, but this is an issue that should have been tended to before the election, and quibbling about it now changes nothing.
#565116

On December 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pm, BOB said:

“I agree the constitution should be supported and enforced, but this is an issue that should have been tended to before the election, and quibbling about it now changes nothing.”

Nice post, but I disagree with that part. If something may have violated the US Constitution to the point that it could invalidate everything the new “president” does, I just can’t see why anyone should stop quibbling over it….and they won’t.
#565214

On December 8th, 2008 at 5:29 am, LC Scott said:

why Barack Hussein OBAMA has chosen not to dispose of this very simple matter in the most logical and expeditious manner possible.

What surprises me the most is that so many on our side haven’t figured this one out yet.
Obama will not close this case till he sees the advantage of it being out there fade away.

AKA, as long as there are kooks out there jumping up and down yelling about “How this paper doesn’t meet my demands” he will have someone to point too and say see the far right is persecuting me.

Painting anyone who leans to the right as a Kook.

(Just my two cents.)
#565242

On December 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

hitcharide said: All too often people will not address an evil until it gets so bad and out of control that they are forced into taking action. A lot of people voted for carter for the same myopic and silly reasons; it took four years of misery and hardship for the people to wake up.

Not trying to draw any direct parallels here, one of those times people didn’t address evil until it was out of control resulted in WW2. Few woke up even when tanks were rolling into Poland. Many more didn’t wake up until millions had died.

Like I already said, we are STILL paying for Carter’s inept administration so I fail to see how ‘waiting’ for things to get worse makes anything better?

If Obama is a natural born citizen then fine; maybe we’ll get a another Reagan-like administration in 2012 and maybe even one without a Bush 41 future built into it? Maybe.

Regardless … The future result of an Obama presidency has NOTHING to do with the the issue of his satisfying a Constitutional requirement. HIS CITIZENSHIP IS SOMETHING HE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVE – NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE TO DISPROVE!

What proof is there that anyone is NOT a US citizen? Should any foreigner be able to come along and say, “Well see, nobody proved that I am not a citizen so THEREFORE I AM!”

BHO hasn’t proven his citizenship. He’s hiding something – what?
#565472

On December 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm, mike.musculus said:

I notice there is still no update from MM for here. I predict she’ll just let it roll off the edge.

Well, she’s in “good” company. She’s joined John McCain, Linda Chavez, and that “conservative” opinionator at NYT. The difference is instead of this, their guiding light shutting down all us bigoted people who thought illegal meant illegal. Its still illegal means illegal, but not sneak-thiefs, just forgers.

I guess there’s a difference…
#565544

On December 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, mike.musculus said:

I’ve stopped reading any other threads. If the arguments presented in this thread aren’t answered and I’m sure there will be no action on it, I’ll stop reading this one too.

At that point I’ll login in and post a monthly comment on some thread to keep Dad’s account alive for him, (I don’t have the right to let it get swept because of inactivity) but I’ve mostly stopped reading here… it really seems you can’t trust the intentions of those involved.

It gives to the heart of the matter: when someone hues & cries about others telling conservatives to “shut-up” and demonizing them as bigots then tells them that legitimate and provable concerns, (that go well beyond “a few pixels”…)make them crazypeople, then we have a pot/kettle situation.

Add to that the weakness and disingenuousness of the arguments used and I must admit that I might have been wrong abt MMs reasons for the McCain stuff. I am still sure about McCain.

In horror I must say it almost seems that when her ox isn’t gored she’s jake with telling others to STHU. I need to to some in-depth research and make some decisions. It will take a while, I’m going to miss the friends I’ve made here. I feel a warm fellowship with everyone, even those I’ve crossed swords with.

However, if our opinions and the facts we’ve presented mean nothing, not rebuttal with a better set of arguments or even a “you took the tone quite differently than I meant it…” then her expressions of affections to all those who visit here were just pro forma and had no substance. Like a rubber mask, you don’t know whats underneath. A welcoming face, or a smirk of self-satisfaction on “putting one over again”?

I’ve gotten a few emails from commentors here I’ve traded email addresses with. I know there are a few who think I’m over reacting. If this was an isolated incident, I’d agree. The problem is that this infection of “STHU, you PEONS!” is working its way through the the political classes and now is spreading to the punditry. And so it seems now that it is here, too.

NB: I don’t have a problem, and never did with anyone’s opinion that we are “barking up the wrong tree”. Or that there is no “there” there. My total and complete problem has been with the snotty, condescending, patronizing tone, implying that we are high-functioning emotional cripples coupled with a set of arguments so insulting to the intellect that, assuming they weren’t a poor joke, indicates MM thinks we’re barely competent morons good only in that we provide increased traffic for ad revenue.

I am really saddened by this, and the continued silence. I enjoy the exchange with people who frequent this site. As I’ve stated: I like the people here, and feel an intellectual fellowship for you all. If you don’t hear from me again, you will know why: I won’t visit a house where I’m not wanted, the home of a disingenuous person.
#565658

On December 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, ggchuck said:

Since the whole issue makes no sense, I’ve come up with my own theory. Perhaps the conservatives have decided (very possibly independently of each other) that to invalidate Obama’s election on what many would see as a mere technicality would create chaos of unprecedented proportions. Openly challenging the constitutionality of the issue would cause irreparable harm as well.

It is not illogical to conclude that ignoring and/or suppressing the issue is best for the country.
#565694

On December 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm, MtsEdge said:

It is not illogical to conclude that ignoring and/or suppressing the issue is best for the country.

That is the mindset that has brought us down into the cesspool we’re in in this country.
#568017

On December 10th, 2008 at 11:27 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

On December 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, ggchuck said:

a mere technicality

It’s not a mere technicality. There is a very good reason why the “Natural born” citizen (not “Native born” citizen and not mere citizen) requirement is there.

The Presidency is unique from all other offices in our government. The President is Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. For this reason, one must be a Natural born citizen. It is intentionally designed to prevent a person with divided allegiance to any other country from ever commanding our troops.

On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

John Jay was the First Chief Justice of the United States, among many other things, and it was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist.
#754243

On July 25th, 2009 at 12:07 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

This issue will not go away.

Quite to the contrary, every day more and more people are realizing that the document produced at the Obama Camapaign Headquarters in Chicago is merely a hardcopy of photoshopped forgery that first appeared on Daily KOS.

The State of Hawaii has never verified that authenticity of that forgery.

The State of Hawaii has never released any documentation of Obama’s birth.

The State of Hawaii has never claimed that Obama was “born in Honolulu”, even though the Associated Press and Fact Check.org lied and claimed that Dr. Fukino had said that.

A newspaper announcement is circumstantial evidence that is not admissible as “proof” of his birth in Hawaii. Can you imagine a new employee trying to use a newspaper clipping as proof of their U.S. citizenship? It’s laughable. If that won’t work to get you a job at McDonalds, it’s certainly not acceptable for the highest office in this country.

Every Member of Congress swore an Oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”. The Constitution explicitly requires that a President be a Natural Born Citizen. It is the responsibility of Congress to honor their oath and verify the eligibility of the man who would be President.

Every member of Congress failed to uphold their oath of office. They “outsourced” their Constitutional responsibility to an unaccountable, unelected, untrustworthy third party who demonstrably lied.

Two things are required to put this to rest:

1) A Supreme Court ruling on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. Can someone who was born with citizenship of another country (as Obama admits that he was) be considered a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States?

2) If the Supreme Court finds that persons born with foreign citizenship can still be considered a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States, then Congress needs to inspect an officially certified birth certificate for Barack Obama, delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii, just as they did with their inspection of the Certificate from the Hawaiian Secretary of State for the certification of the Electoral College vote.
#771830

On August 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Michelle Malkin, December 5, 2008 (in the post above):

There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?)

It’s not just a “citizenship” requirement, which is sufficient to be a Senator, it’s a “natural born citizenship” requirement, which is necessary to be President.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of “natural born Citizen” gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
#771836

On August 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Michelle Malkin:

Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged.

You acknowledge that the “Certification of Live Birth” was “produced by Obama”. It was not produced by the State of Hawaii; it was produced by, and at, the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.

After writing a #1 bestselling book on the Obama “Culture of Corruption”, why do you accept anything that comes from Team Obama?

Even if you believe that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama is authentic, don’t you think that due diligence requires that we get a certified authentic copy of Obama’s original birth certificate from the State of Hawaii?

If the data on the two documents matches, great!
If not, this is bigger than Watergate.

I simply cannot comprehend how or why you accept without doubt anything that comes from Team Obama.

They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there.

Do you know why? It’s because all that was required to create a “Vital Record” of Obama’s “Hawaiian birth” was the sworn statement of one of Obama’s relatives. His Grandmother could have given a sworn statement, and that would have led to the newspaper announcement. But if that is the “original Vital Record” of Obama’s birth, something is very “fishy”…

Why? Because Obama claims to have been born at Kapi’olani Medical Center. If that is true, then the “original Vital Record” of Obama’s birth should be a hospital birth certificate, not a sworn statement from one of Obama’s relatives.

(Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?). And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

Nice smear, Michelle. It didn’t take “a fortune-teller… knowing he would run for president”, and none of the “birthers” claim that. All it took was a relative of Obama’s who wanted to ensure he would have the benefits of U.S. citizenship. The newspaper announcements are proof of nothing more than that, and not even a 16 year-old could get a job at McDonald’s with a newspaper announcement instead of a state-issued birth certificate. Obama has never released a state-issued birth certificate directly from the State of Hawaii. That is a fact, and you should not trust anything less than a state-issued birth certificate.

But that’s not even the main point!

Michelle, to be undoubtedly a “natural born citizen”, one must be:
1) Born on U.S. soil
2) Born to a U.S. citizen father
3) Born to a U.S. citizen mother

Obama has openly admitted that he doesn’t meet condition #2, and that AT BIRTH he was a British subject. That alone disqualifies him from being a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on U.S. soil.

And you completely ignore that birth on U.S. soil is not sufficient to make someone a “natural born citizen” of the United States. My concern is not about Barack Obama’s citizenship. My concern is that even with Hawaiian birth, Obama was born a British subject, which became Kenyan citizenship, which he held until his 21st birthday. That is not “conspiracy theory”. That is undisputed fact, admitted by Barack Obama’s own campaign, on their “FightTheSmears.com” web site. Again, this is undisputed. Regardless of where Obama was born, he was born with foreign citizenship, which raises serious Constitutional doubts about whether or not he is a “natural born citizen”. That is not just my opinion; that was the opinion of the Supreme Court in the 1875 case of Minor v Happersett:

“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 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

You are focused on the wrong thing. You chose to focus solely on Obama’s birth location and assumed that if he was born a citizen per the 14th Amendment, then he was born a “natural born citizen”. That is a faulty assumption. The 14th Amendment was already part of the Constitution when the Supreme Court said, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” In other words, neither the 14th Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution defines “natural born citizen”. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the 14th Amendment does not resolve the “doubts” about whether people in Obama’s situation (born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents) can be considered “natural-born citizens”.

You also failed to verify the birth document of the President-elect. It is not acceptable to “outsource” this to an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party. Annenberg Political Fact Check is neither elected by, nor accountable to, “We the People”. Annenberg Political Fact Check claimed that they had examined Obama’s “original birth certificate”, but that is untrue. They examined a “Certification of Live Birth” (a completely different document from the original birth certificate), a document that was produced by and at the Obama Campaign Headquarters in Chicago.

Ignoring this issue will not make it go away. It has only gotten more serious as time has gone by. To put this issue to rest, once and for all, here are the two simple things that must be done:

1) Congress must inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”, so that it can be clearly seen whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.

This is a serious Constitutional issue.
#810616

On September 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Michelle Malkin said:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.

There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?) And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

1) Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because HE HIMSELF was born a British subject. And he admitted so on his “Fight the Smears” web site.

2) Thanks to the persistent efforts of “MissTickly”, who forced Dr. Fukino into making her second Press Release, Leo Donofrio is now engaging the Hawaiian officials:

Let’s prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii So we Can Move Onto His British Birth.

Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended
#811919

On September 24th, 2009 at 11:15 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

The entire Presidential eligibility movement has been ridiculed as a fringe “conspiracy theory” by main stream media, members of Congress and even Judges speaking directly from the bench. This ridicule is largely due to public statements made by Hawaii Department of Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino (see below) which testify that she has seen vital records maintained by her office which prove President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has an original birth certificate on file there.

The ridicule has been broad, extending even to public investigators like myself who believe that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But reliance on Director Fukino and her Communications Director Janice Okubo are sadly misplaced. They are guilty of misdirecting the public away from vital records information made expressly available by statute where no privacy exceptions apply.

These accusations are not a matter of conjecture. They are a matter of fact and shall be proved. This, Part 1 of the full report, will illustrate multiple instances of misdirection.
#812405

On September 24th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

A Response to Michelle Malkin
#816072

On October 1st, 2009 at 10:28 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

It appears that a cover-up bigger than Watergate is currently underway in Hawaii in order to protect the man currently acting as President…

Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law.
#817792

On October 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

- Mohandas K. Gandhi

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

- attributed to Albert Einstein

The articles below are suggested, roughly in this order, to understand the events, aspects, and nuances of the attempt to understand what the alleged “Hawaiian Birth Certificate” of Barack Obama is, what has been done with it, and by whom, over the years.

Arthur Conan Doyle originally wrote his Sherlock Holmes stories as serials, published in a magazine. That art imitates the real life of a journaled investigation.
#819582

On October 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

QUESTION: Which government organization was the first to say:

“Obama was born in Hawaii”

Is your answer, “The Hawaii State Department of Health”?

Sorry, that answer is not a winner.
#823970

On October 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Sunday, June 27, 2004
The Standard Ltd
I & M Building, Kenyatta Avenue,
P.O Box 30080, 00100 GPO, Nairobi-Kenya.

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
#825056

On October 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

Michelle, you said:

…at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

That is not true. When a U.S. Senator claimed “Mr. Donofrio’s case concedes that President Obama was born in Hawaii”, here is what Leo Donofrio had to say:

tell him Mr. Donofrio never “conceded” Obama was born in Hawaii. It is my opinion he was, but I still demand proof that he was born in Hawaii and the Hawaii authorities have not proved they can be trusted with the administration of their own open government laws. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not say why my case was not accepted – it was an emergency stay pertaining to the national election – not a petition for Cert on the nbc issue. It may have been a procedural issue which caused them to deny the stay application. Please ask the public servant to refrain from using my name in response and to refrain from making assumptions about my case which SCOTUS has NEVER spoken about.
#825058

On October 16th, 2009 at 11:24 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

The quote from Leo Donofrio in my last comment can be found in the bold yellow print here, in this comment on Leo’s blog.
#825074

On October 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”.
#842426

On November 15th, 2009 at 1:16 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

The Indiana Court Of Appeals said:

…we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

But even those who agree with what the Indiana Court Of Appeals said must admit the following:

There were 1,075 people involved in the election, certification, and swearing-in of Barack Hussein Obama II:

538 Electoral College Electors,
435 Representatives,
100 Senators,
1 Vice-President, and
1 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Not a single one of them inspected a hard copy Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II, to verify that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Hawaii as he has claimed.

All 1,075 of them, representing all three branches of our federal government, had sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but failed to do so. Not a one of them did their due diligence to ensure that “a President shall have qualified”.

Even those who agree with what the Indiana Court Of Appeals said, must admit that a Quo Warranto case is necessary, since not one of those 1,075 people upheld their sworn oath to support and defend their Constitutional responsibility to ensure the President-Elect qualified.
#842430

On November 15th, 2009 at 1:21 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

It is my opinion that the Indiana Court of Appeals misinterpreted the Constitution multiple times… not once, not twice, not three times, but four times in just this one sentence alone:

For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

My reasoning is contained in this comment on my blog, in response to an O-bot’s comment. While I am not an attorney, attorney Leo Donofrio said I “did fine” in my comment.