G. Gordon Liddy was on Hardball with the ever lovely Chris Matthews to debate whether or not President Obama is a legitimate citizen of the United States or not. Liddy, the so called leader of the birther movement, says that Obama is not.
G. Gordon Liddy
Of course in response to the accusation, the left wing kook media is in full throat. They claim that the birthers are “on the fringe” and “kooks”; talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Right now there are stories on Daily Kos, Think Progress, Salon, and of course Huffpo defending Obama and trashing G. Gordon Liddy.
Now being a conservative, I’m not totally sold on the birthers argument. Is Barack Obama a legitimate citizen of the United States and therefore a legitimate President? He most probably is, but for some unknown reason, he has not produced the birth certificate that would end the debate once and for all.
Do I think G. Gordon Liddy should carry the water for the conservative movement, no not really. It’s never really a good thing to have a convicted felon doing your heavy lifting. The whiners on the left have it pretty easy trying to discredit G. Gordon Liddy; they of course have Watergate to fall back on. They also have the copy of Obama’s certificate of live birth to look to, saying the question is answered, the debate is over. But is it?
There are those however, the left calls them birthers, who have legitimate concerns over the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. Let’s face it, you can’t go to World Net Daily without reading through ten birth certificate stories at any given time. The left says they’re crazy, but isn’t that the same type of argument the liberals tried to use against George W. Bush? He was illegitimate because he didn’t win the popular vote in 2000; true he didn’t, but how he won was constitutional, therefore the debate is over.
All G. Gordon Liddy and the birthers are asking for is a legal birth certificate to prove he’s legitimate; I wish he would produce one just so we can get on to matters of greater importance like healthcare and cap and trade. Those things need to be stopped legitimate President or not.
G. Gordon Liddy on Hardball
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Actually Shannon, he did produce it. Look it up, it has the stamp, the date, everything. Why lie?
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I was born in Hawaii. My Birth Certificate looks like Obama’s - that’s what they issue in the state. I dont understand what people are questioning his citizenship, he was also born of a US Citizen
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
lisab
Please come back to HHR. Everyone misses you.
Chek
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Such irresponsible irrational arguements coming from a watergate mastermind are not only distracting but dangerous. I’d check out if this fellow is not a clansman. You have no proof he is an american but are absolutely certain he is kenyan. Why do european americans like this moron think everybody wants to be american?
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I think it would be a tremendous marketing opportunity for someone to come out with a line of TP with Obama’s birth certificate on it–which has been produced, and verified, etc., etc., blah blah, woof woof–then all you right wing nuts could wipe yer butts with it, and when it scratches a little, say “Ooh! Ouch! That damn Obama! Why’d he have to be born in the USA?!”
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
He won’t produce what’s being asked of him because it would end his presidency.If he had nothing to hide, there would be no debate.
Lisab: no idea who HHR is but we would miss you more!
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
My sister was born in Hawaii at Tripler and her birth certificate DOES NOT look like Obama’s. Not even close.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:32 am
“There are those however, the left calls them birthers, who have legitimate concerns over the issue of Obama’s birth certificate.”
That has to be one of the most bizarre rhetorical constructions I’ve ever seen. If there are people who have concerns that you deem legitimate, then these concerns should also be your concerns. And, if you find these concerns legitimate, you should be championing their cause, and, further, calling for Obama’s immediate deportation. If you find their concerns excessive, then say so.
Why should the birthers be more concerned than you are, if the concern is legit?
What I find outrageous about this “birther” thing is that this group is placing the burden of proof on Obama. Not only have they pulled this charge out of their rears, but they are also demanding that he prove them wrong, according to their whimsical sense of satisfaction.
In this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the birthers.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:47 am
“In this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty.”
Yes, but most people can’t seal the evidence.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:49 am
the burden of proof is on Obama, why doesn’t he produce his birth certificate?
and while he’s at it, how about his college transcripts and an explanation as to why michelle obama is not able to practice law?
July 24th, 2009 at 3:19 am
“…and an explanation as to why michelle obama is not able to practice law?”
Sounds interesting oriana. What do you know about Michelle?
July 24th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Liddy is too old to be the leader of any kind of movement. Matthews must have felt like he was boxing a glacier. “You can’t get a passport with this (the COLB), you can’t even get your kid into little league with it”? That’s almost exactly what I turned in to get my passport, except from SD.
It really should be a non-issue. Two Hawaiian Health Department officials and the governor have stated the COLB is accurate and Obama was born in Hawaii. And why else would there be newspaper announcements? The only advantage between a natural born citizen and naturalized citizen that I’m aware of is eligability for POTUS or vice-POTUS. In any year, but especially back in 1961, you would think you would have a better chance of winning the lottery twice before you would think you’re biracial son would become president someday.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Burden of proof is on Obama just as Bush was forced to defend idiotic AWOL claims by releasing every document possible. Why is Obama better? Just release the records. No not the scanned forgery that was posted online.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:53 am
The leader of the ” birther” movement is a Democrat and former Hillary supporter Phil Berg who also operates the Obamacrimes website. How convenient for them to leave Bergs name out,
July 24th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I saw a close-up of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate from the Hawaii Dept. of Health. Check it out for yourself….The Certificate Number is: 151 1961 010641
Now pay attention here.
151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753
Now add up the individual digits….
1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18
You know what that means?
18 = 6 + 6 + 6
Do I have to spell it out for you? 666 people!!!!! THE MARK OF THE BEAST!
Lord Jesus, COME QUICKLY!
July 24th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Why is it okay for Whoppi to think the moon landing was a fraud, and Rosie to think 9/11 was caused by the US gov’t - yet people wanting a real vault certificate are kooks? McCain had to prove he was a natural born citizen because of a lawsuit brought by a Democratic activist - yet Obama doesnt? Anyone running for president should have to prove he or she meets the constituional requirements - you must be born ON US SOIL…not simply of US citizens but ON US soil. That is what the birthers are after - was he born on US soil. The live birth certifcate from Hawaii only proves that his parents went to the Dept of Health to say a birth took place - not where. This is allowed in Hawaii. Obama would only release this one - not the one that states where he was born. In Hawaii you can be born overseas, come back, and get a Cetificate of Live Birth. You would not be eligible to be a US President then….that is the whole debate. WHERE…what hospital? What doctor?
July 24th, 2009 at 6:31 am
A point I have made repeatedly on this issue is this: unless you have that smoking gun you are wasting your time going around talking about this subject and you’ll just get branded a whacko. This whole issue has been debunked by the usual sources so you just won’t get any traction with this. Is there something strange about the reason Obama doesn’t release his original BC? Maybe, personally I think its because it lists his religion as Islam. However, unless you have solid evidence that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, or wherever this is a fight we can’t win.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Obama RELEASED his birth certificate in Jun 2008. Here are the photos made by FactCheck.org:
Birth certificate photo 1: Fold and seal
Birth certificate photo 2: Full certificate
Birth certificate photo 3: Full certificate
Birth certificate photo 4: Top third
Birth certificate photo 5: Middle third
Birth certificate photo 6: Bottom third
Birth certificate photo 7: Stamp and seal
Birth certificate photo 8: Seal
Birth certificate photo 9: Stamp
July 24th, 2009 at 10:29 am
By the way….With regard to Dubya’s win in 2000.
In the blog that started this thread Shannon stated that there were those who were upset about the 2000 election because they felt that Dubya was illegitimate because he didn’t win the popular vote in 2000; true he didn’t, but how he won was constitutional, therefore the debate is over.
.
.
.
As for my own view on that election, the real problem that I had with the way that election was determined concerned what I feel was a bad decision by the Supreme Court. The reason that I believe it was a bad decision had nothing to do with the result, but it had a lot to do with the Constitutional ‘tear’ that the court made in that decision itself. The Supreme Court should have simply sent the appointment of electors back to the Florida Legislature to decide. That is where that decision ultimately belonged. Under our Constitution, the State Legislature must choose how the state’s electors will be appointed. The wording under Article II is:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
If the laws that prescribed the process that the State of Florida used to select its electors were flawed (which they most certainly were) it should have been up to the Florida Legislature to intervene and appoint the electors. I don’t think that there would have been any doubt about who they would have appointed. The Republican party was clearly in the majority in both houses of the Florida Legislature so I think it was clear that they would have appointed electors for Dubya. If they had to alter the laws of the State of Florida in order to appoint those electors, they could have easily done that too. I also think it would have been fair to say that the Governor would not have vetoed any bill that altered the law so that the legislature could have appointed Dubya. After all, the Governor of Florida was a close personal brother of the candidate in question. If there were any provisions in the Constitution of the State of Florida that would have prevented the laws from being changed to accommodate the situation, then the State of Florida would have to make its own decision as to how to proceed. If they did not fully qualify their electors under their own laws, then they should have forfeited them. It would have been their own fault and their State Government should have bore the responsibility for their own inadequate procedures. My understanding was that the State Legislature was prepared to appoint the electors as soon as it became obvious that the process would not fully qualify any set of electors. They should have been allowed to do just that.
The Federal Law that provides for the date that the Electoral College would meet to select a president cannot and should not be used to usurp the sovereign power of a State to exercise its Constitutional suffrage in the appointment of those electors. The Supreme Courts decision effectively did that by ruling that the laws enacted by the State of Florida should be suspended by the Federal law, and that the election results should be frozen before those results had been fully vetted by the process contained in the Laws of Florida. If that process is to be suspended, it should have been suspended by the State Legislature, and not the United States Supreme Court. That decision ranks as was one of the poorest decisions I have ever read, and the reason that I view it as such is because at least the Legislature would have been held accountable by the people. They should have made the decision of who the electors were to be…not those Supreme Court judges. After all, those judges hold an office of Trust under the United States. They may not have been appointed as electors, which would have been a clear violation of the Constitution, but they should not appoint the electors either. That should have been done by the Legislature if the laws made by the legislature were inadequate to make the appointment within the prescribed time.
The precedent of that decision is now set into our common law, and it gives the Federal Government even more power. It also flies in the face of the careful plans that were made by those before us to make certain that the person elected to the office of the President was selected by the states, with each state carrying the same proportional weight in that election as they hold in their representation in Congress. The decision to take that power away from each state was a mistake. I have always wondered why I never heard a peep about this from people who called themselves ‘Conservatives’, and it is one of the reasons why I trust ‘Conservatives’ about as much as I trust ‘bleeding heart Liberals’.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am
That Hawaii Birth Certificate is legal and meets the standards required to prove citizenship.
Lets take this a step at a time.
That Hawaii Birth Certificate includes:
1) The full name of the child
Has a filing date within one year of the date of birth
2) The place of Birth
3) The date of Birth
4) The full name of the Mother
5) The full name of the father
6) It bears the signature of the Official Custodian of Birth records for the State of Hawaii
7) It bears the seal of the issuing office
Here are links to photographs of the Birth Certificate from Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg (The front view)
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg (Another front view)
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg (Close-up of the raised seal)
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg (Close-up of the raised seal and signature of the State Registrar)
There is a statement on the face of that certificate that “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”. (See ‘The front view’). The State of Hawaii has certified this certificate as being of evidentiary quality by that statement.
.
.
.
.
Now, lets look into what is required for a birth certificate to be considered proven.
According to CFR 22 Section 51.42 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=2d7b2744de5fa61784289889a3b7cecd;rgn=div5;view=text;node=22%3A1.0.1.6.33;idno=22;cc=ecfr#22:1.0.1.6.33.3.1.3):
(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.
.
.
.
The birth Certificate linked to above meets all of those requirements. Is that Birth Certificate alone enough to establish proof of Citizenship? At this point, it will only establish birth in the United States, and only if the above CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) is considered as being binding.
The above CFR was established under the State Department’s authority to issue Passports for citizens of the United States. The State Department’s authority to issue passports is provided by general law under Title 22, Chapter 4, Section 211a of the United States Code( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C4.txt ). The CFR was established pursuant to Title 22, Chapter 4, Section 211a, and Title 22 is a general law of the United States enacted pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. The Birth Certificate linked to above meets all the requirments of the CFR, which makes it legal under Title 22 of the United States. The question is still “Is the Birth Certificate Valid under the Constitution? What does the Constitution have to say concerning the records of a State?
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution
(http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con4.1) is very clear on this. It states:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
.
.
.
.
That Birth Certificate is considered to be of evidentiary quality by the State of Hawaii. The Constitution requires that ‘Full Faith and Credit’ shall be given to the ‘public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings’ of each state. The Constitution also provides the Congress with the power to prescribe the manner in which such ‘Acts. Records and Proceedings shall be proved’.
That Birth Certificate meets any Constitutional requirement to prove birth in the United States. That question should be settled. The only remaining question is whether birth in the United States is consistent with the ‘natural born citizen’ clause of Article II.
There are those that believe that a person is only a ‘natural born citizen’ if they are born of two citizens. This is the common law rule of Jus sanguinis (the right of blood). The people who adhere to this interpretation of ‘natural born citizen’ claim that a person’s citizenship is derived from their parent’s citizenship. They will quote the ‘Law of Nations’, which is a book written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758 to prove their interpretation. Those who support this view argue that the founding fathers knew of this work and that the principle of Jus sanguinis was the rule that Vattel applied in his written definition of a ‘natural born citizen’. The question now becomes Does the book ‘Law of Nations’ contain the true meaning of the words ‘natural born citizen’ as they apply to the qualifications for President that are found in the Constitution under Article II?
To answer that question, all that you need to do is realize that the founding fathers would have specified, in some way, that they were not relying on the generally accepted meaning of those words at the time the Constitution was ordained and established. The English legal system was the basis for the legal systems of each of the thirteen colonies that formed the United States. The English common law was the basis for the common law of each one of those thirteen colonies.
According to the English common law that existed at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and the establishment of the Constitution for the United States of America, a person was a ‘natural born subject’ of the King so long as he was born in His Majesty’s realm and was subject to His Majesty’s jurisdiction. According to English common law, even the child of aliens was considered a natural born subject of England as long as he was born on English soil, and under the jurisdiction of the King.
Every colonist understood this principle, because they knew that anyone who was born in their colony was automatically regarded as a natural born English subject, as long as they were born under the jurisdiction of the King. They operated under the rules of English common law, not under the rules of a citizen of Switzerland. If the founding fathers meant to change the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ to the meaning provided by a Swiss Citizen, they would have clearly stated that the English common law rule was being replace by the Swiss Common law rule. There is nothing to indicate that.
In fact the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Wong Kim Ark (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649) that a person who is born in the United States, even if they were born to two alien parents, is still a citizen of the United States at birth. In this opinion, the court held that the Constitution must be viewed in the light of English common law in those circumstances when the founding fathers gave no clear guidance to the contrary. The opinion of the court stated the following:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
This decision was handed down in 1898, over one hundred and ten years ago.
The birth certificate is valid proof of birth in the United States under the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant thereof. The English common law recognized that even the child of aliens was a ‘natural born subject’. The people of the colonies lived their lives under English common law, not Swiss common law, so the principles of English common law would have governed their interpretation of the words ‘natural born citizen’, not the principles of Swiss common law.
If this case went before 200 different judges in the United States, there would be 200 rulings in support of ‘natural born citizenship’ handed down, as long as those decisions were handed down based on the law. Isn’t that what we want from out judges??
.
.
.
.
Finally, I want to answer those that argue that the ‘British Nationality Act of 1948’ makes the President a citizen of the United Kingdom at birth, and that renders him ineligible to hold the office of President of the Unites States. That is about as ridiculous an argument as the argument that we should use the common law of a country other than England as basis for anything that our Constitution speaks to unless that basis was clearly spelled out more than two hundred and thirty years ago.
I suppose a person could make a deal with the Chinese government (or the Russian government, or the Iranian government, or the North Korean government) to have them pass a law that makes every US citizen, except them self, a natural born citizen of China (or Russia, or Iran, or North Korea). By the logic of the ‘British Nationality Act of 1948’ there would then only be one person eligible to be President.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
This whole thing is a joke… I say everyone here should product their birth certificates, driver licenses, college transcripts, SAT scores, PSAT scores, High school diplomas, driver licenses, and keep going cause it I will keep coming up with stuff. The State of Hawaii has pronounced the certificate they issued as authentic, the local announcement place in 1961 is authentic and on official microfilm. This is a repeat of the continued barrage done to Clinton in 1992-6… Foster, Whitewater and the list goes on. It’s right out of the GOP Operating Manual. Enough already.. if everyone would spend the time reading the Health legislation and questioning their representatives about lobby money and influence we would all be better off.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Mark Anderson: Actually, he didn’t. The Certificate Of Live Birth reseased by Obama’s staff, while adequate for many purposes, is not accepted, for example, by the Hawai’ian Homestead Program. Photocopies of the origional (long form) birth certificate are available–requiring the person’s authorization, of course–from the Hawai’ian government. Why Obama, who was so candid about admitting things like cocaine use won’t release such mundane documentation is, to say the least, odd.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Adam was referring to the Hawaiian Homestead Program when he made the statement:
Mark Anderson: Actually, he didn’t. The Certificate Of Live Birth reseased by Obama’s staff, while adequate for many purposes, is not accepted, for example, by the Hawai’ian Homestead Program. Photocopies of the origional (long form) birth certificate are available–requiring the person’s authorization, of course–from the Hawai’ian government. Why Obama, who was so candid about admitting things like cocaine use won’t release such mundane documentation is, to say the least, odd.
I am hoping that Adam will take a look at the ‘Department of Hawiian Homelands’ site that discusses the requirements for applying for Hawaiian homelads.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
You will note that the criteria for being granted an Hawaiian homeland is that you must be a ‘native Hawaiian’, which means that at least 50% of your bloodline is from those persons who were native to Hawaii previous to 1778.
I needed to state that so that a person who had no idea what you were talking about when you mention the Hawaii Homestead program might have some clue.
As to your assertion that the ‘Short form Birth Certificate’ is not accepted, or that photocopies of the ‘long form’ birth certificate are available….I think you should read what the State of Hawaii actually says about the Primary Documents that are required on the page that is linked to above:
Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
.
.
.
.
Please note the parts above from the Hawaiian web site that I have highlighted in bold.
I hope that after you spend the time to read the actual requirements for the Hawaiian Homestead program, that you will understand that the argument that you present is somewhat flawed.
July 25th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Is it possible to trash Liddy? He speaks very effectively for himself and is a maverick in his own right. He is one of the few public people left fromt he Nixon team era, Dean is another. He has enthusiastically signed on to be a tool for highly conservative state forces when asked. The birthing thing is wrong as most of you know, but its politically fun. Sometimes it almost seems likes he’s poking fun in his own way at things. He went on a public debating tour with Tim Leary that drew out crowds in the early 80″s as he is the intellectual voice of the right, at even a higher level than Limbaugh if you carefully listen to what he says. That is something we lack right now in all the other talking heads cluttering up the airwaves and cables. If he writes a new book per chance, it would be an intersting read.
July 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
From the horse’s mouth:
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
However:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
Obama would still have his CERTIFICATE on file and could obtain a copy for $10.00. Ditto for hospital records (Kapi’olani? Queen’s?), Occidental admission records, &c.
There’s something else. I was born in a medium-sized Canadian city, in what was one of six hospitals, in the early 1970s. That hospital closed about 15 years ago. I’m an average-looking, hazel-eyed, brown-haired white boy, with the rather generic name ‘Adam’ (thankfully, not some of the other…interesting ones my mom entertained). I’ve never even been an Alderman. Yet people (other mothers, my physician, nurses) still recall me & my mom, from that hospital. I even have a goofy hospital photo. Since I was about four, I knew that hospital’s name–Holy Cross.
Barack Hussein Obama II has a rather unusual, pompous name. He was born a mullatto boy, in racist 1960s America (in Hawai’i, with a mostly Hawai’ian, Asian and/or Caucasian population), to an older African man with an accent and a young Midwestern girl. He’s held public office, published books and been on Oprah. Yet NOBODY–doctors, nurses, candystripers, parents–from either of the two hospitals (again, which one?) he claimed to have been born at. No cute “I remember Baby Barack” anecdotes, no silly BABY (as opposed to toddler) picks in the hospital.
THAT’S the most puzzling of all.