Given all the other troublesome policy coming out of DC these days, I’m amazed that anyone would rank speculation over his birthplace in with “hard questions from the media.”

The fact that the media simply doesn’t care should be a sign. The fact that Fox News doesn’t care shouldn’t be a bigger sign. The fact that no news agency more reputable than WorldNetDaily (which itself initially reported that the birth certificate was legit, though they now try to gloss over that) cares a whit about this issue says a lot.

There is a document that classifies Barack as an Indonesian citizen when he was enrolled in school there.

A document that also, incidentally, states that he was born in Hawaii.

If he, in fact, was considered an Indonesian citizen at that time, does that not nullify his American citizenship,

No, it doesn’t. Obama was all of 6 or 7 years old at the time. Nothing his parents could have done could have sacrificed his U.S. citizenship.

The fact that this concern has been constantly avoided demonstrates the desire to cover something up,

But it hasn’t been constantly avoided. When the issue was first raised back around June 2008, Obama responded by releasing a copy of his birth certification from Hawaii. The fact that the conspiracy theorists simply adjusted their accusations and *kept* attacking him says more about them than him.

Besides, what incentive does Obama have to address them? All it does is lend additional credence to the accusations. By ignoring them, it makes it all the easier for Obama and the Democrats to paint Obama’s critics, in general, as a bunch of right-wing nuts.

Those were installed by Cathy Cox at a cost of $70million, and last I heard, they can’t be upgraded. Replacing them would be another multi-million dollar venture that doesn’t seem like a high priority to the citizens of this state. No big surprise–democrats tend to do things based on untested ideas and leave the People in the lurch.

I agree with you that these machines produce unverifiable results, and I have been against them since Cathy Cox first did a trial run with them in my county. What’s your suggestion for fixing this? I imagine there are many under the gold dome who would be all ears.

@Loren: “If Obama produces an original COLB, then there will be allegations that he forged it, and demands that he submit it to inspection by, as you say, a ‘responsible journalist.’”

So what? I think the American people deserve at least that this issue be addressed in an open manner by Obama with open access to the document in question. Is he still too soft to handle hard questions from media? When will he be able to stand up and answer the tough questions without saying, “uh, uh, uh…”, and offering no real answers?

“If it passes court inspection and all doubts about the COLB are quelled forever, then the conspiracy folks will turn back to the arguments that he was adopted in Indonesia…”

There is a document that classifies Barack as an Indonesian citizen when he was enrolled in school there. If he, in fact, was considered an Indonesian citizen at that time, does that not nullify his American citizenship, if he had it at all? I don’t claim to be an expert on this, but I want a solid answer on the issue in a press conference or other open forum.

Obama is a public official. He has willingly put himself in a position that is subject to public scrutiny, and this issue should have been scrutinized long before now. I don’t subscribe to any conspiracy–I, as a citizen, just want to be assured that this presidency is constitutionally legitimate. A cloud of doubt still hovers, and needs to be addressed openly and directly. The fact that this concern has been constantly avoided demonstrates the desire to cover something up, and I’d like to know what that is.

In a way, it parallels the Cindy Sheehan situation where she kept going on that she just wanted to meet President Bush about her son, when it turned out she already had. People on the left just couldn’t help themseveles rallying around her, no matter how far down the rabbit hole of craziness she went. In their quest to make Bush look bad, they associated themselves with a situation that made them look out of touch and caring about nothing but smearing the opposition. Just like the Obama was born in Kenya crowd.

And you seem to have absolutely zero sources to bolster yours. Funny how that is.

“Again, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that Obama could have an interview with a responsible journalist and put this all to rest.”

Nonsense.

If Obama produces an original COLB, then there will be allegations that he forged it, and demands that he submit it to inspection by, as you say, a “responsible journalist.”

If he does so, there will be allegations that the journalist was in on it, and that he needs to submit it to a court for inspection.

If it passes court inspection and all doubts about the COLB are quelled forever, then the conspiracy folks will turn back to the arguments that he was adopted in Indonesia, or that his legal name is “Barry” not Barack, or that he gave up his US citizenship when he traveled to Pakistan.

And if you doubt that that’s exactly what would happen, look at the article that Erick linked to. Those are arguments that the Birthers are already making in that article. Arguments that even a Birth Certificate witnessed by JFK and notarized by Jesus wouldn’t stop.

Our current voter machines are illegal, in violation of the Georgia Constitution. Yet, Karen Handel is allowed to parade around as a viable candidate for Governor, the suspicion the voter is under has increased, and barring some miracle, our 2010 elections will be conducted on equipment that is not verifiable. Perfect.

Praise God we have a Republican regime, I mean government.

Again, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that Obama could have an interview with a responsible journalist and put this all to rest. He could produce his full, original COLB. He could produce affidavits from his family friends and relatives that affirm under penalty of perjury that he was born in Hawaii.

The reason he doesn’t do it is what’s interesting.

No, there weren’t.

There was Ron McRae’s interpreted telephone interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, where at one point she says she was “present” for Obama’s birth, without specifying where. That’s where the conspiracy theorists cut off the transcript. The full audio continues for several more minutes, as Grandma Obama then has to repeatedly state to McRae that her grandson was born in Hawaii. The conspiracy folks like to ignore that part of the conversation.

Conspiracy folks are fond of saying that a couple of Obama siblings also claimed he was born in Kenya, but no one seems to actually have a source for this claim. Or even the NAMES of the supposed siblings who said this. Some of these claims say that the two were present for his birth, which would necessarily mean that they were Obama’s two older half-siblings.

Of course, Obama’s two older half-siblings had a different mother, and were very young when Obama was born. Why would a Kenyan divorcee would take her two toddler children to see her ex-husband’s American second wife give birth?

Still, Harry, you seem like somebody who’s put a lot of time into this: what’s the original source for “relatives in Kenya” (and that’s plural) who say he was born there?

Also, I will point out the fact that Obama’s mom was 18 years, 9 months when Barack was born. The U.S. government gave him a passport at some point prior to 1980 when he went on a foreign travels, including to see his father. There has never been any question by the State Department, and it is doubtful he was contemplating elected office then and would have a reason to misrepresent himself, that he was a U.S. citizen. There has also been precedent going back to the founding period when, especially when they discuss age requirements in the Constitution, that close counts. Henry Clay was not yet 30 when he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator from Kentucky. He was born April 21, 1777 and was sworn in March 4, 1807, a month and 1/2 before he reached the age of the Constitutional age requirement.

You would have thought if that was a problem, Sec. of State James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would have made sure it was stopped.

The 2 1/2 months would likely be viewed the same way if it were even an issue.

Try again. Tell me the law in 1961 (and don’t worry about me, I have it and will let you know if your answer is right).

“Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)”

I understand that when Obama was born, the law stated the citizen parent had to live in the US for the past 10 years with the last 5 being after the age of 16. His mother was 18 so she could not have fulfilled the 5 year requirement.

Very few persons fall within this category since, as defined by the INA, all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals but only a relatively small number of persons acquire U.S. nationality without becoming U.S. citizens. Thus, Section 101(a)(22) INA states that all U.S. citizens are also nationals of the U.S. However, Section 308 INA confers U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship, on persons born in or having ties with “an outlying possession of the United States.” The outlying possessions are defined in Section 101(A)(29) INA as American Samoa and Swains Island. No other statutes define any other territories nor any of the states as outlying possessions. Those enumerated in section 308 INA as eligible for this status, in addition to those mentioned above, are those individuals born abroad to two American non-citizen national parents, or those born abroad to one alien parent and one non-citizen national parent. Also, there is a residency requirement placed upon the parents of the child prior to birth in order to transmit U.S. nationality.

In addition to Section 308 of the INA, Section 302 of Public Law 94 – 241 provides for certain inhabitants of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, who became United States citizens by virtue of Article III of the Covenant, to opt for non-citizen national status. (See requirements of Section 302).

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law – the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Congress also says if one of your parents is a US citizen, you are a citizens at birth, even if you are not born on U.S. soil.

Please explain to me how someone born a US citizen is not a “natural born citizen.”

Please point out where in the Constitution it defines “natural born citizen” as something different.