Sure sounds like it:
[W]hy are we supposed to rely on the testimony of Dr Fukino, whom I believe entirely. It is not my job as a journalist or yours as a citizen to take public officials on trust. They are not to be trusted, whoever they are. It is our job to demand all the evidence we want or need. I know the electronic record is legit. I have no doubt that Obama has every constitutional right to be president. I think the Birthers are nuts. But there is no reason on earth that the original cannot be retrieved and shown. Jon Klein and CNN were wrong, and I retract my apology of yesterday.
See, that’s the thing, Andrew, we don’t need to rely upon the testimony of Dr. Fukino. There’s plenty of evidence to put this to rest.
We’ve got the Certification of Live Birth, which is clearly genuine. That COLB is the only document that the State of Hawaii issues to verify birth records.
In addition to the COLB, we’ve got contemporaneous birth announcements from two Honolulu newspapers in August 1961 of a son born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama.
That’s it, case closed. Barack Obama was born in the United States. He’s a natural born citizen.
Of course, considering Sully’s obsession with the birth of Trig Palin (see here, here, and here), it’s not all that surprising that he just wouldn’t be satisfied with the overwhelming evidence backing up Dr. Fukimo’s statement.
Update:Sully is getting even worse:
So many readers are furious that I have dared to ask the president to show the original copy of his birth certificate. The reason for demanding it is the same reason for demanding basic medical records proving Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig.
Because it would make it go away and it’s easily done.
Translation — because I’m Andrew Sullivan and I want to see it.
As with the Trig Palin nonsense, it appears that Sullivan is getting obsessed over a meritless issue and about to make a fool of himself again.
Should be fun to watch.
H/T: Balloon Juice
July 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Case closed? I don’t think so.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. 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 and Colonies by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK.
(continued)Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
- Joe Miller of FactCheck.Org
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Obama/Soetoro was thus not a ‘naturally born citizen’ and is thus not our President…unless the UNITED STATES hasn’t been a Constitutional Republic to begin with?
That’s the real question. Was America usurped in 1868 with the passing of the 14th Amendment? If it was, and it was, then the Constitution is, like Pres. George W. Bush once said on camera, just a “God damned piece of paper”.
One last thing. If the ‘birther’ thing is such a non-issue, then why has Obama spent over $1 million fighting it?
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The Constitution does not require that a “natural born citizen” have two parents who are citizens.
You’re wrong.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Natural born citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by blood, which is why the children of illegal immigrants that are born in this country can not necessarily be deported because they are technically citizens by birth.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The birthers base their definition of NBC on the work of a Swiss philosopher whose book was published ten years AFTER the Constitution was drafted
July 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
huh??????
He says, explicitly, that he believes Dr. Fukino (i.e. that he believes that there is an original birth certificate on file). He says, explicitly, that Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president. He says, explicitly, that he thinks the birthers are nuts.
And from this you conclude that it “sure sounds like” he is a birther??????
He is simly saying, that if the original exists, then why not show it publicly so that the nut cases will have to finally shut up? Why have a public official say – “Ive seen it, its legit”. Why not show everyone?
Sounds reasonable to me. But even if you claim it is not reasonable, how on earth does asking for that make him a birther?
really dumb argument…
July 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
If he believes Fukino then why does he need to see the a birth certificate when one has already been produced ?
And if he understood the birthers at all, he’d know that production of a birth certificate won’t satisfy them anyway.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Obama has shown the birth certificate publicly. It’s on his campaign web site for anyone and their mother to download and look at. What Andrew Sullivan is missing is that people like Orly Taitz say that the “Certificate of Live Birth” is not that same as a “Birth Certificate” and that even if he had a birth certificate the issue wouldn’t be solved because of some crazed misconception that your parents have to be citizens for you to be a natural born citizen, which is simply not true.
Obama could build a time machine and take everyone back to Honolulu in 1961 and let them watch him being born and the “Birthers” would still say he isn’t eligible.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Not only are there contemporaneous birth announcements in two Honolulu papers, those birth announcements were based NOT on info provided by the family, but on info provided by the hospital to the Dept of Vital Records in the State Dept of Health.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4894&cpage=1#comment-9821
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280345
July 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Re: “He is simly saying, that if the original exists, then why not show it publicly so that the nut cases will have to finally shut up? Why have a public official say – “Ive seen it, its legit”. Why not show everyone?”
The villain is Hawaii. Not Obama.
It is Hawaii that refuses to send out anything but the new, short-form birth certificate called the Certification of Live Birth. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
If you read the article, it clearly says that it sends out the Certification to everyone. It no longer sends out copies of the originals to ANYONE, and anyone includes Obama.
So, here is what happened. Obama lost or mislaid the original birth certificate sent to his parents at the time of birth. Nothing unusual; that happens to a lot of people. Then he asked Hawaii in 2007 or 2008 to send him a copy of his original birth certificate, and Hawaii sent him the Certification.
Why doesn’t Obama show the original? He doesn’t have it and Hawaii did not and will not send it to him.
IF Hawaii changes the rules to release the original birth certificate, Obama would get it and we could see it. If Hawaii made an exception in the rules and made the birth records of a president public documents then we could see the original. But until then, we have to rely on the Certfication and on the the statements of the officials that there is an original.
As a supporter of Obama, I would be delighted if Hawaii changed its rules to allow the original to be sent to Obama or made public to everyone. I’d be delighted because the original MUST show that Obama was born in Hawaii. In 1961, a foreign birth certificate could not be filed, and we know that there was a foreign birth certificate. The notices to the newspapers that appeared on the weekend after Obama’s birth were not advertisements. They were notices sent out by the government of Hawaii when someone was born in Hawaii (and not when someone was born outside of Hawaii). All this proves that the original must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Then why doesn’t Obama show it? Because he doesn’t have it, and Hawaii will not send it to him, or show it to anyone.
Who is the villain? Hawaii. What should be done? Get Hawaii to change the rules to send out the original to people who ask for it or to make an exception to the rules and make the birth records of a President public documents. The governor of Hawaii is Linda Lingle.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
nilesmc said:
“One last thing. If the ‘birther’ thing is such a non-issue, then why has Obama spent over $1 million fighting it?”
Proof please.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
nilesmc is clearly wrong on the law, and you are correct, Doug.
However, there’s no good reason that, if the original document exists (which Dr. Fukino says exists) it should not be produced. Does anyone doubt that, if Barry asked for it to be produced, it would be?
I have no use for President Barry, and I think he’s constitutionally eligible for the office (though philosphically ineligible), but relying on a bureaucrat’s word when an original document exists relies upon the presumption of bureaucratic rectitude.
And in that, I do NOT believe.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
“Does anyone doubt that, if Barry asked for it to be produced, it would be?”
Yes, because of state laws in Hawaii.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Thats the part that people keep ignoring.
Hawaiian state law clearly forbids release of the “long form”
July 29th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
James Young @ 11:
And then what? A picture of it will be posted on the Internet and birfers will scream because they were not allowed to touch it.
Just like the Kerry military document nonsense, it never ends.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
More interesting to me than the people who won’t be convinced that Obama is a citizen is all the parallels it draws, e.g. to the issue of race from the Gates-Crowley incident. The best connection was made by Stephen Colbert last night to DC statehood. See here: http://lifeinsidethebeltway.com/2009/07/colbert-connects-birthers-to-dc-statehood/
July 31st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
When Sullivan first wrote that he wasn’t a birther but wanted to see the Long Form anyway, I sent him a carefully-worded email expressing my views which he failed to address or mention. I said that Obama presented what was required of him to the state department and they were satisfied. The birthers have given no reason why they aren’t satisfied with the short form and I believe the movement (a member of which is known as “Crazy Eileen”) are acting under racist intentions. I also pointed out that as the accused, it is not Obama’s position to provide proof. In this country, the burden of proof lies with the accusers; that’s the law. The birthers have to dig up some official document saying that Obama was born in Kenya, or Guam, or the Moon. I also pointed out that Hawaii state law refuses to relaes the long form to anyone, even Obama.
Sully ignored everything I said and went on to compare him to Sarah Palin, even though Obama brought forth the document that the state department asked for. He wants to see the long form on General Principles. I thought I had made a point point or two, but he failed to acknowledge them, even when I finished by saying I found him a wise man. I’m through with Sully from now on.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
to smrstrauss: So there’s no way the president of the United States can obtain a copy of his long form birth certificate? No way it can be released to the public without a change in the law? (That’s an interesting reversal of logic.) No way his school records can be released, either? Really? You believe that?
When all this is finally cleared up, there’ll be PhDs written about long-term collective denial and widespread self-delusion regarding Obama’s birth records.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Mr. Mataconis says that de Vattel work was published 10 years after the constitution was drafted. Really? Either he’s an incompetent idiot who can’t research simple facts or he thinks we are. Law of Nations was published in 1758.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/
And, it’s nice that we have a certification of live birth showing Obama to be born in Hawaii. Case closed. Wait.
This just in..
http://orlytaitzesq.com/obama-certified-copy-of-registration-of-birth-in-kenya.htm
Bye Bye Barry!
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Anyone who says anything definitive about who is a “natural born citizen” is a fool or a liar. There is no case law nor any legislation anywhere that clearly and specifically defines what an NBC is. Please don’t cite Wong or Dred Scot or Minor since none of those define NBC. Also don’t cite the 14th or the naturalization code because those don’t define it either. The citizen at birth and the born in the US to citizen parents arguments are at this time both nothing more that personal opinion. If anyone says anything different ignore them.
Doug
Vatell was published in 1753. please do some basic research before posting or you’ll look like a fool.
Vast
What has been shown is a “CertificaTION of Live Birth”. What they want to see is his “CertifiCATE of Live Birth”. Hawaiian officials have stated this document exits and in their possession. Hawaiian law does permit the disclosure of this document. This is what one looks like. It was issued from the same hospital one day after Obama was born.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 am
“Bye Bye Barry!”
So what happens, Ron M? you want Biden running things?
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 am
“The birthers have given no reason why they aren’t satisfied with the short form and I believe the movement (a member of which is known as “Crazy Eileen”) are acting under racist intentions.”
Oh for pete’s sake, Craig. Were the Democrats who asked for Bush’s impeachment doing so under “racist intentions”? God forbid people just don’t LIKE Obama under his own merits or happen to have a partisan bias.
I don’t like Obama because I believe he stole the DNC nomination from Hillary via caucus fraud. It has nothing to do with racism. I simply don’t support people who steal elections by intimidating and silencing old ladies at caucuses.
As for the right wing: Republicans who want Obama out want him out because they perceive him to be a SOCIALIST…they could care less about the color of his skin. They equally despise Nancy Pelosi.
This whole “if you don’t like Obama you’re a racist” is a tired, lame, weak argument. Give it a rest.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
The anti-birthers are clearly trying to cloud the issue and create confusion rather than deal with the basic facts which is that Obama has refused to supply his long-form birth certificate despite claiming to be born in a hospital in Hawaii. Merely having an official state the short-form certificate of birth is real means nothing because anyone could have obtained that for their child even if the child was born in another country and it certainly does not verify one was born in a hospital. A child could be born at home, for example, and if Team Obama were making that claim, perhaps the Certification of Live Birth would be the only records available. But they are saying he was born in a hospital and so there would be on-file a hospital birth certificate.
Why not just produce it?
There are credible reports Obama was born in Kenya as his relatives there say he was, and Obama’s refusal to prove his Hawaiian hospital birth should strike anyone as fishy. At this point, it’s almost a worse indictment of the president if he actually was born in Hawaii because he signals he feels above the law and not beholden to the American people. What sort of person wouldn’t just answer voters concerns by saying, look guys, here is the long-form birth certificate? What does that say about his character if he has nothing to hide?
There are other issues such as being adopted and so becoming an Indonesian citizen when he was a boy that have also been raised, but just to keep it simple, why are so many clearly obfuscating the issue claiming that just because he has produced a short-form certificate that somehow that proves he is native-born. That isn’t the issue, and I’ve got to wonder how the anti-birthers can continue to deceptively present that as the issue with a straight-face as if they are honestly dealing with the subject.
It should be no big deal for someone running or who has become president to verify his birth here in the US. Obama can settle the issue anytime he wants by providing his hospital birth certificate.
Why won’t he?
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Absolutely. The primacy of state law in these sorts of cases is well established. Obama’s position as President means jack-squat. He can certainly ask, but the State of Hawaii is under no obligation to humor him. Any attempt to create a federal law to force Hawaii to release the long form would likely run afoul of 10th Amendment.
A similar case occurred recently in Texas, where the state repeatedly refused to grant consular access to a foreign national (guaranteed by treaty), up through his execution. The Feds were powerless. The Federal Government’s inability to intercede on a defendant’s behalf in a state proceeding is one of the reasons the US scores lower than expected in many good governance/transparency surveys.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Re: “No way his school records can be released, either?”
He has the power to release his school records, if he wants. Why should he?
You should take a look at the school records that the plaintiffs attempted to subpoena in the case you are referring to, Keyes v Obama. First, they FORGOT to attempt to subpoena Obama’s financial aid records. They only asked for ALL Obama’s academic records and all his housing records.
Well, frankly, I don’t think that they have any right to see his housing records, or the housing records of future presidents, which would naturally affect the privacy of the people he and future presidents had lived with. If he wants to, Obama can disclose his academic records. However, remember in this case the attempt was to see ALL the academic records. No president has disclosed more than a grade-point average before, not the names of all courses taken and the results in each of them. I’m not sure that it would be good precedent that all future presidents must disclose all courses they took and the grades in each of them. (And, what would the grades in each course have to do with Obama being a Natural Born Citizen?)
As I said before, the plaintiffs forgot (but perhaps they did NOT forget) to ask for Obama’s financial aid records. So, they would not have found out whether Occidental had considered him a foreign student in any case.
But, what really does it matter. Say that the plaintiffs had asked for the financial aid records and that it showed that Occidental had considered him a foreign student (which is unlikely, but say that it did.) Does this prove that Obama really was foreign? No it only shows that Occidental considered him a foreign student, and it has the right to consider anyone anything since it is a private organization.
And besides, both the US State Department and Indonesia say that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Re: “No way it can be released to the public without a change in the law? (That’s an interesting reversal of logic.)”
I agree with Darkwater, but I am not clear whether an actual LAW has to be changed or whether regulations simply have to be changed. Either way, it is Hawaii that has to do it.
No one can force Hawaii to change the law or the regulations, but we can ASK Hawaii to do it. That is known as the right of petition. The governor of Hawaii is Linda Lingle. And, either way, changing the law or changing the regulations, it should not be too difficult to do. I do not believe that Democrats in Hawaii would oppose the action, since they KNOW (as I do) that the original must show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Anyway, the point is that Hawaii has to make the change.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
***Ignore smrstrauss.***
He’s an Obama-bot (O-bot). In real life his name is Paul Strauss and he’s an Obama Superdelegate.
http://paulstrauss.org/
See evidence of him being an O-bot here:
http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obama-bot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue/
August 6th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Re: Ignore smrstrauss.
Yes, I supported Obama, as did 69 million other US voters, about ten million more than voted for McCain.
Obviously, if one completely ignores the views of the pro-Obama side, you will receive only the postings of birthers and you will not get a fair debate or all the facts.
Re: Paul Strauss. The poster who alleges that I am Paul Strauss has made an error or is lying. The Paul Strauss referred to may for all I know be a Republican. (I’m not going to ask, I don’t care.) I am Samuel M. Strauss of Ohio.