[Erin] It's campaign conspiracy season...

"So hopefully the Obama campaign will be quick in using the best weapon at hand to dispel the rumors."

What's the rush? I don't imagine the Obama campaign is in a hurry to relieve right wing bloggers of their idoicy on this issue. Maybe the Obama team is hoping the media will actually latch on to this, and when it comes to a boil, they'll be like, "What? birth certificate? Oh, here ya go".

Actually, it depends. Military dependents still have birth certificates, and birth certificates are one of the ID's that can be used to GET a 'replacement SSN card'.

But, frankly, this is the first time I've heard of it. And given the sheer volume, and in many case, silliness of various rumors (I mean, honestly, the certificate of live birth isn't exactly the same thing, but are they thinking he's not who he says he is, or wasn't born in the US?), they'd need a whole wing just to deal with debunking.

Which could be the whole point. Distract from anything else, for things like this. Do you think it SHOULD be taken seriously enough to address?

Well, I didn't get a SSN until I was six or so. I had my first passport before I had a social security number! We were overseas by the time I was three and did not return until then. I did have to memorize my SSN rather sooner than civilian children do though.

You could use a birth certificate to steal someone's identity but they usually require a certified copy with the stamp or watermark.

I don't know what the big conspiracy is supposed to be. I'm sure his campaign will have to produce proof of his citizenship before this is all over. After all, he could have fooled the Feds this whole time. Maybe he's just another illegal - he's brown after all. AND he's LIVED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!!! (I hope you all hear the sarcasm dripping off my words...)

All part of the long term smear campaign, and it appears to be working. This rumor will be spread as fact in some circles. Some people will now never be convinced otherwise. It will be the old bad news on the first page and retraction on the back page thing. If there is a lot of smoke there must be a fire.

Steve

Erin states: "[T]he question is why the Obama campaign hasn't yet taken this obvious step [of producing the actual birth certificate, and not a computer-generated 'certification of live birth']" ?

This is the right question to ask. With all their financial resources [and the various gumshoes and other PIs on the Obama campaign staff), you'd think they would be able to produce the actual birth certificate.

Why haven't they?

This is not a "smear campaign" -- but it is a legitimate question. Do they have something to hide?

Helen, "Let's talk about the multiple problems the US is facing ... and not get sidetracked by a whole lot of nothing."

Of course, let's "talk". But in November, our task is to determine who we can trust to put in the Oval Office.

Can we trust Obama? Who he actually is seems quite different from he pretends to be.

He says he will advance "new politics" ... but breaks his word on campaign finance reform.

He says he will advance post-racial unification ... but supported with his own money that crazy Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

He says everything is in order with his birth documentation ... but can't produce the actual birth certificate and tries to fool us with this computer-generated "certification of live birth" (whatever that is).

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

A birth certificate is an official certification by a state -- or city, or county, or even a U.S. embassy, whichever is the relevant recordkeeper -- that it has a particular record of a live birth in its files.

In that sense, no birth certificate is the "actual" birth certificate. The original public record of the birth is the only original document, and it never leaves the government's hands.

The government may change the form in which it issues such certificates over time, and may choose to divulge more or less of the contents of the public record on the certificate, or may choose to describe the public record in a different form. (Some jurisdictions avoid such variation by issuing birth certificates that are simply copies of the official public record.)

For example, if Obama's mother had obtained a birth certificate for him in the 1960s, which she probably did, I'd bet it didn't describe the father's race as "African" -- that's probably a new policy.

It might be interesting to see what a 1960s-vintage birth certificate for Obama looked like, although his family may have misplaced it.

"No one knows what he is hiding. Unlike you, I would not try to suggest what he is hiding. That is for Obama to eventually reveal (or, perhaps, for the media to uncover)."

I do not have any idea but he must be hiding something seems to be the argument. Going all the way back to one's birth certificate is about as as you can go. Everything has been turned upside down on this guy. There just isnt much room for anything of importance to come out. Unless Dumbledore had a spare time turner to loan out, there is nothing in his writings or performance to suggest (even remotely) he is a secret Muslim, homo, commie or whatever smear you want to throw.

Yes, Obama went back on his word about campaign finance. McCain played fast and loose with public finance rules and his loan. These guys are both politicians. Both will occasionally decide the rules do not apply to them. Breaking a promise in order to win is common politics. I will put that as a negative in Obama's file. The smears I reject.

Steve

Emilie: but he has produced it. The whole "but it's not the original" sulk is just an attempt by the media and the GOP to prolong the non-controversy.

As many others note, different states and municipalities do things differently. I was born in Michigan. A few years ago I requested a copy of my birth certificate and I received a photocopy of the typewritten form that was filled out in 1974. On the other hand, our county in Indiana generates a modern-looking birth record that is not a photocopy of the original. Obama has produced a certified, official record of live birth from Hawaii. Who knows how Hawaii maintains its birth records. Perhaps it's just a book, or there are no more original records and it's all on a computer.

The bottom line is this: we are supposed to be concerned even though a) there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Obama was born outside the United States, and overwhelming evidence indicating that he was; and b) there's absolutely no reason to question the accuracy or authenticity of the certified record generated by Hawaii. The whole thing is ridiculous. He has produced a "simple document" in the form in which Hawaii issues such documents. Period.

Goodguyex, there is no hocus-pocus. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. All biographical, official, and circumstantial evidence supports that. A bunch of lunatics are making an issue of it because the Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" doesn't look the way they think it should look.

Barack's mother is American. So, even if he were born in space, by current laws, he is American by blood. Same as McCain.

Got something else?

And Erin, there's your goofy conspiracy theorists. In case you think that it was only the media that was exaggerating things.

First, I haven't really HEARD of this thing for 6 weeks. To be honest, this is the first I've heard of this being any kind of issue at all.

Probably didn't take the buzz seriously. You know how much silliness there is on the net? I'm sure someone out there wants him to produce DNA to prove he's not an alien clone planted in the government to prepare for the invasion.

It isn't all that different. Indeed even right wing sites have shown examples, and the 'difference' they were able to produce was that they used the phrase 'African' instead of such things as 'negro' or 'colored' for his father's race, without recognizing that, in the case of his father, he actually CAME from Africa.

And I haven't called anyone a lunatic. I've called the ISSUE silly, however.

Once again, which item that is verified by a birth certificate (what's so 'all important' about it? My step mother never even SAW hers until she was 50.. never needed it) that you think is in doubt?

Karen Brown,

I asked three simple questions about this "document" and the way the BO campaign has handled it.

BO supporters can simply answer the questions ... or resort, as you have done, to dismissing the questions as "subpar" and "ridiculous" and "silly."

Which will it be? Answer these simple questions ... or denigrate those who ask them?

To whom really doesn't. All it requires is being born within the borders of the United States.

And tax returns have been brought up repeatedly. Hardly the first time here. Tax malfeasance is a wee bit more likely than that someone was secretly born in another country, and forged a birth document.

For those wondering what the fuss is about:

The main conspiracy theory seems to be that Obama was not born in the United States. First, it was proposed that he was born in Kenya, his father's country of origin. The latest theory is that he was born in Canada.

If Obama were born outside the US, there's an argument that he's not a natural born citizen of the US, within the meaning of the US Constitution's requirement for Presidents. (He might still be a citizen of the US, by virtue of a statute, but not a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.)

McCain has the same problem: is he a natural-born citizen of the US, within the meaning of the Constitution? He was born on a US base in the Panama Canal Zone. Congress has passed a law (I think) saying that counts as the US, and recently passed a resolution saying that McCain specifically is a natural-born citizen of the US. But, of course, the Supreme Court, & not Congress, is the ultimate authority as to the meaning of the Constitution. It's at least theoretically possible that someone could, if McCain won the general election, bring a lawsuit claiming that he didn't meet the Constitutional test, and win. Not likely, though, especially given the recent Supreme Court case finding Guantamo = US for habeas purposes, given the US control over it.

Back to Obama: if he was born in Kenya, or Canada, or any other place outside the US, and wasn't born in a place under US control (and thus not born in a place that counts as being in the US, even though it actually isn't), then he wouldn't meet the Constitutional test.

The evidence that Obama was NOT born in the US is exactly ZERO. Nobody has produced a single piece of evidence to trump the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that Obama has produced. But that hasn't stopped imaginations from running wild.

Oh, there's also a subset of people whose real interest in the birth certificate seems to be in proving that Obama's parents were not legally married.

Except you are pointing out that it isn't vanishing because of bloggers.

So you blog about an issue that bloggers are keeping percolating? Seems a very self-feeding process.

Man liberals sure have a hard time reading when it comes to the Constitution...

"To whom really doesn't. All it requires is being born within the borders of the United States."

Actually it does matter if not born in the States. The whole allegation is based on the premise that he was not.

"So, even if he were born in space, by current laws, he is American by blood."

But read carefully. It doesn't say "a citizen." It says a natural-born citizen.

To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.

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."

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code 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.

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.

"Actually it does matter if not born in the States. The whole allegation is based on the premise that he was not."

Actually, is that the case? I've heard several people here claim that THEY weren't making any particular assertions. Only that there were 'questions'. (Not even what those questions were.) So, you're making a clear statement that there are allegations that Barack Obama wasn't born in the US?

"But read carefully. It doesn't say "a citizen." It says a natural-born citizen.

To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born."

I'll agree with that. Very true, I was only thinking citizenship, not qualifications for presidency.

"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."

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code 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.

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."

Long post, but that doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii, which last I heard is inside the US.

Now, again, are you now clearly stating that this call for a particular version of Obama's birth certificate is specifically because there are allegations that Obama is lying about where he was born, has created a fraudulent document and was actually born outside the US?

Is that what people are actually claiming, rather than this vague, ominous 'questions'?

"I've heard several people here claim ... Is that what people are actually claiming, rather than this vague, ominous 'questions'?"

Yes. They are. Those are the people I was referring to. Not anyone on this blog. I read about it last week...

"Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog, cited the "unlikely" but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty defined the concerns most clearly, stating: "If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen … because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for '10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'"

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was 18 when Obama was born "so she wouldn't have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16."

Geraghty continues: " (Interestingly, apparently there isn't much paperwork on Obama's parents' marriage. 'Obama: From Promise to Power,' page. 27: 'Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama's maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.' Also note that Obama's father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)"

In fact, not only did they meet in Hawaii, and marry (legally or not) in Hawaii, but they didn't even move to Kenya AFTER Barack's birth, but he left them and went to Massachusetts. He didn't return to Kenya until several years after Barack was born, without wife or child in tow.

(Again, sounds like a rather odd thing, to take your illegal second wife to the location of your legal first marriage. Its just asking to get caught. If you had a wife in Missouri, and a wife in Montana, would you take the Montana wife to Missouri?)

Richard

"In the era of identify theft would you release you birth certificate to the whole world?"

Can be easily redacted, though I'm not sure what it would contain that would be so problematic. Who on earth wouldn't know what B. Obama looks like at this point. Do you think people would think he would be down at Rent-a-Center, or applying for a loan on a tear-down in Detroit, or a credit card at Target? Please!

REP - Why do you read this blog? Is it only to criticize Erin and Rod about what they choose to post? Why not write your own (the typical length of your posts suggest that you are itching to do just that...)

You know, if I only read blogs and articles from people I agree with, I'd likely be criticized for that.

Speaking for myself, I read all kinds of blogs. I tend to read ones I disagree with more than those I do. Interesting to hear other views. And to post my own. I do believe most bloggers kind of expect that. That's why 'controversial' blogs get more posts than ones that say things everyone agrees with.

Forgot the Snopes article about citizenship.

Note, this even covers if Obama WAS born in Kenya (though there's not one shred of any evidence he had been. Even his father didn't return there until years after Obama was born.)

First off, the 'five years after they were eighteen' would disqualify ANY person, regardless of origin, with either one older foreign parent, or born outside our borders with both US parents under 23. That covers quite a bit of territory, and would make quite a few people not natural born US citizens. (And as it is unlikely that they would've known this and gone through the necessary immigration procedures, makes them illegal immigrants.)

So, if your pregnant 20 year old and her 21 year old husband go on vacation in Mexico and have their child, that kid isn't ever going to be a natural born US citizen.

Does that sound feasible to you?

But a reporter, from a Florida newspaper. Not any kind of election or government official, and not even the same state as that 'all important Pennsylvania primary'.

So, any candidate needs to read all the newspapers, and offer up anything any random reporter asks for?

And 'candidate of change' doesn't mean that they change the RULES of elections.

Ooh, a whole six weeks to comply to a question by a reporter from a local state newspaper.

Yeah, that's some major scandal and secretive behavior there.

Now here's an interesting one. And shows a bit more graciousness from the other side. The questions about McCain's citizenship (more valid, given even HE notes he was born in Panama) were not from Obama, or Clinton's campaign, but from Ron Paul supporters.

Indeed, it was a bill sponsored by, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that made the provision that 'Senator McCain is a natural born citizen and is eligible for the highest office in the land.'

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/legislation-int.html

Interesting that the same courtesy doesn't come from McCain's supporters.

Emilie--I agree with you that Clinton and Obama were gracious to sign on to the resolution about McCain's being a "natural born Citizen." But what they signed on to was "a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate." It doesn't finally resolve the issue. What's at stake here is the meaning of part (Article II) of the Constitution, and the US courts are the final authorities on that.

Oops--it wasn't Mitt Romney whose eligibility for the presidency was questioned by virtue of his birth in Mexico (although to US citizens). It was his father, George Romney, who ran for president a while back. My bad.

As for whether the Congressional resolution (not bill)regarding McCain was gratuitous or not--it was gratuitous because it was non-binding. Whether or the foreign-born children of US soldiers/diplomats are eligible to be President or not is currently an unresolved legal question. Such people are US citizens, because Congress has passed laws that say so. But "natural born Citizens"? That question is still up in the air. The opinion of "Reaganite" on this issue is worth exactly the same as mine--that is, nothing. (Unless s/he is secretly on the Supreme Court . . . )

"Karen, it's not like the Obama campaign was being asked to produce an obscure or complicated document. Just the birth certificate, for crying out loud!"

Neither is a driver's license, or your social security number, or your high school diploma. Should a person be required to produce those upon command by any random reporter?

"Barack is a member of the Illinois bar, and has been a state or federal official since the middle 1990s. Why would it have been a problem for him or his campaign to produce this simple document back when it was asked for? Why take six weeks? Why black-out a corroborating registraion number on said document? Why the difference in appearance between said document and those issued by the relevant agency?"

It wasn't a 'problem'. Nobody stated it was. They did so. Ooh, took six weeks. Likely a couple of weeks to even know that this story was out there. (Honestly think people read every single newspaper article). Another few to even give it serious thought. Only with the increase in paranoid buzz did they take the time out to dig out the birth certificate (hey, I don't carry MINE in my wallet, and he's all over the freakin' country right now) and post it. As for the registration number, for all I know, that's some security thing. Possibly for the one issuing it.

And the ones they used in comparison often were from different years, and very small differences.

"One would not normally make a big deal out of this ... except for the stange way the Obama campaign initially handled this and the persistent questions about the authenticity of the document which was eventually produced"

The 'strange way' was to ignore it. THat's hardly all that strange. And the questions are persistant because even sites like this, calling it a conspiracy, still consider it to be necessary to comment on them because 'everyone else is doing it'.

From Ron Paul's website. A petition to say McCain is disqualified for the Presidency due to where he was born.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/39912

Well, I was more saying they wouldn't be the ones objecting. If it is brought up to the Supreme Court, it likely won't be Obama or Clinton doing so.

Of course, we do have at least one Senator who still might, and he's not a Democrat. And given the petition, you're right about McCain.

I have my doubts that there's any serious issue with Obama's citizenship.

The difference being.. if there is an issue with McCain, it is with known elements of his past. He never disputes being born in Panama. If there was with Obama, it'd be about his birthplace being different from what he claimed, and he is passing off fake documents. I do believe the standard background check would've already researched that sort of thing.

Got to remember, Reaganite. It isn't saying he isn't a CITIZEN. It is saying that he isn't a 'natural born citizen'. There's a very small list of things this would be required for.

So, unless you are saying they are discriminated against because they can't be president, then its not a big point.

If its that kids of US parents born overseas shouldn't be discriminated against, then that would apply to Obama if he DID happen to be born in Kenya. (which, btw, I do doubt. Again, he's both a Senator and has a passport (as well as a SS card, etc, all of which require ID including a valid birth certificate, and one requiring a background check.)

Nitpicker
Back to Obama: if he was born in Kenya, or Canada, or any other place outside the US, and wasn't born in a place under US control (and thus not born in a place that counts as being in the US, even though it actually isn't), then he wouldn't meet the Constitutional test.

Yes he would meet it, and that's the stupidity of the whole thing. His mother is American, and thus it doesn't matter in the slightest where he was born. The most reasonable reading of 'natural born citizen' is 'citizen at the moment of birth', which people born to Americans overseas are.

If you want to know what the founding fathers meant by that phrase, they passed a law in 1790, six years before the Constitution itself: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

That law is (obviously) no longer in effect, but it's still useful to figure the intended meaning of that clause. Natural born citizens==citizens at birth.

For him not to be 'a natural born citizen', he'd have to be born outside the US to two people who were not American. He was, instead, born inside the US to one person who was American and one who was not, which makes him a 'a natural born citizen' twice-over.

This is actually better news for McCain, as Obama actually was born in Hawaii, and McCain was born on a foreign military installation. Which, like embassies, are not subject to the 14th amendment...if foreign citizens have children in oversea US military bases or US embassies, their children are not US citizens, despite that technically being 'US soil'. (Same with their embassies here.) (1)

I quote the State Department:
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
-http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

If you're born in one of those places, you're only a citizen if a parent is a citizen. If the laws making hypothetically-born-in-Canada Obama a citizen because of his mother don't count for 'natural born citizen', they can't make actually-born-in-Panama McCain count either.

I.e, people born on US military bases would not automatically be citizens without laws to that end. So if that's what defines 'natural born citizenship', then McCain supporters really need to stop now or they're about to stupidly exclude their own candidate from the race on this idiotic theory that, despite all evidence, Obama was not born in Hawaii.

1) Diplomats, of course, are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States', as they have diplomatic immunity, and hence their children are automatically not citizens even if born outside the embassy in the mainland US proper, which is either an extremely well-planned feature of the constitution or a weirdly useful bug. This, however, does not apply to military personnel, as they have no such immunity.

They seem to think that its the foreign parent that is the issue. (Still not quite sure how the legality of their marriage matters..)

It isn't. The issue they bring up would be the same if there was one American parent or two. It matters, as noted, more to McCain than to Obama. And the standard they gave definitely disqualifies McCain, while it only theoretically disqualifies Obama.

We've had people 'come out of nowhere' before, without people claiming they weren't US citizens, or of a different religion than they have practiced for 20 years, etc. And he hardly 'popped out of nowhere'.

Three books, including bestsellers. A law degree, law practice, community organizer and current senator.

Its not like Clinton, for instance, was that well known on the national scene prior to his campaign. Or Huckabee (Most famous for losing a lot of weight), or.. well, dozens of candidates over the years.

And yet, nobody said they were lying about their ID and may have been born in another country.

You don't think that might have something to do with a less than traditional name, do ya? That this might not be happening with 'Sam Johnson'?

Karen Brown,

These issues keep coming up with Barack Obama because he hasn't always been truthful about himself. He presents one image of himself ... and then we learn something else. This is what causes distrust of the man.

Take, for example, the issue of his Muslim roots. He has made categorical statements about his religious affiliations ("I've always been a Christian" ... and ... "I've never practised Islam"). These statements are contradicted by the simple facts of his life and by those who knew and remembered him as a young person.

In late April, Daniel Pipes wrote a detailed article for FrontPage magazine entitled, "Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood." The son of renowned Harvard historian Richard Pipes, Daniel Pipes is no obscure internet blogger but rather a veteran scholar and journalist. The article can be read here at: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544

When you compare the absolute denials issued by Obama and his campaign ... against the facts laid out and assembled by Pipes, you're drawn to a simple conclusion: Obama would have been better off admitting the complexity of his own upbringing, including a not casual acquaintance with the Muslim faith, rather than having issued the blanket statements he has spun about his own faith journey.

BO is equipped with a brilliant mind and a gifted tongue. He has risen far on those talents -- and on a compelling life story that is entirely self-created and, at times, inconsistent with the facts. It is these inconsistencies -- no matter how minor -- that give pause.

"These issues keep coming up with Barack Obama because he hasn't always been truthful about himself. He presents one image of himself ... and then we learn something else. This is what causes distrust of the man."

Every person, much less every politician, presents the most ideal image of themselves. Very few live up to that image. Including 'Maverick' McCain, who in the end voted 90 percent of the time with President Bush. Who flip flopped on off-shore drilling, on his own campaign reform legislation, and who refused to vote for the very law he sponsored. Do you have the same distrust of him?

"Take, for example, the issue of his Muslim roots. He has made categorical statements about his religious affiliations ("I've always been a Christian" ... and ... "I've never practised Islam"). These statements are contradicted by the simple facts of his life and by those who knew and remembered him as a young person."

That is the sort of thing that tends to make me dismiss the rest of a post as, well, founded on internet rumor. Define 'practice'? I know people who attended Catholic schools, for instance. And were NOT Catholic. Attending a school doesn't make you of that faith. Nor does what your parents write on a paper, or religious rules that rely on what your parents are. At least to people of FAITH. Are you judging what beliefs another person holds? And is this person who claims to have known him as a young person know what his real beliefs are?

Because, I can tell you right now, anyone who knew me as a child, and I DID practice that faith, they would've considered me a devout Christian. My parents went to church and sunday school with me. I was the secretary of the church youth group, for goodness's sake.

Now, you can take their word over mine, but I'm going to tell you that, the entire time, I was an atheist. I never believed. I don't know what your criteria is for being a member of a religion, and practicing it. Myself, I tend to go not with what your parents sign you up for, or what they practice, but what YOU believe. Your mileage may vary. But, in the end, given every religion is different, as is every practitioner, that what that particular person's definition is what matters.

"In late April, Daniel Pipes wrote a detailed article for FrontPage magazine entitled, "Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood." The son of renowned Harvard historian Richard Pipes, Daniel Pipes is no obscure internet blogger but rather a veteran scholar and journalist. The article can be read here at: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544"

Yep. I'm on his page, and I didn't stick with that article. It seems the man has a serious paranoia about anything Muslim. Let's see.. references to "Eurabia", callling Liberals Fascists, claims that Liberalism is 'Lee Harvey Oswald's Legacy'.. Yes. A very respected, unbiased, 'fair and balanced' reporter, he is. And Frontpage Magazine is a journal for the conservative organization of David Horowitz.

Its not like every reporter has the same credibility, nor every magazine.

But let's look at his claims.

First, he uses a supposed Muslim law that a child has the religion of his father. But, if you are not a believer, you can't be co-opted by a religion you do not BELIEVE'S laws.

If your mother was Hindu, and you never believed in it, and Hinduism said you were a Hindu because your mother was, would you consider YOURSELF to be a Hindu? Why would someone who doesn't believe IN Islam care about what Islamic law says, considering their status?

His sister? He never met his sister until he was grown. His sister never met him. Therefore, her 'my family always was' very likely means the family she grew up with. Since when does what your family practice define your religion? This includes her statements about services 'the family' attended. That family didn't include Obama, who was, at that time, living in Kansas with his grandmother. By that standard, I'm a Lutheran.

Nothing in that article is new, most of it is decades old hearsay, at best.

"When you compare the absolute denials issued by Obama and his campaign ... against the facts laid out and assembled by Pipes, you're drawn to a simple conclusion: Obama would have been better off admitting the complexity of his own upbringing, including a not casual acquaintance with the Muslim faith, rather than having issued the blanket statements he has spun about his own faith journey."

He never claimed to be unacquainted. He claimed he never was a Muslim. I'm very well acquainted with Christianity. I never was one. I'm also well acquainted with the theory of internal combustion.

Doesn't make me a car.

"BO is equipped with a brilliant mind and a gifted tongue. He has risen far on those talents -- and on a compelling life story that is entirely self-created and, at times, inconsistent with the facts. It is these inconsistencies -- no matter how minor -- that give pause."

And now being smart and able to speak makes one suspect?

I guess that makes sense if a person considers GW Bush the height of integrity.

"The point is, there is no specific statue that covers military installations. The Senators did a 'non-binding resolution', they didn't pass a law."

Sorry Karen, but you are wrong. Go back and read my post above. I don't disagree that this is a non-issue - but your characterization of the facts and the law are a bit off.

McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."

The non-binding resolution was just that, a non-binding resolution. It is not determinative, but it shows, at least, how the Congress intends the statute to operate.

"There's nothing in McCain's situation that wouldn't cover Obama's situation IF Obama was born outside the US."

Wrong again. Depending on where he was born, issues come up about how long his mother lived in the US and when. Again, re-read the earlier post with the statute, and the allegations of the bloggers.

Oh, and that statute you cited with McCain only talked about 'citizenship'. We aren't talking about if they are US citizens. The issue is being a 'natural born US citizen'. THAT was the issue that was being brought up.

I don't think the basic citizenship of either candidate is being called into question. Is either one being accused of being an illegal immigrant? I don't think so.

But there is one big issue, and its not about their citizenship, that makes the situations different (and therefore why the BG check would be important).

Questions about McCain are about the information he has provided, and under the assumption it is correct. His birth certificate freely states his birth in Panama. And it is being born in Panama, as he fully admits, that is the issue.

The only way Obama's situation would be at all controversial is if Obama is not only lying, but had created and is disseminating a fraudulent government document. A forged birth certificate.

You think that someone would make it all the way to the Senate and through a whole year and change of a Presidential campaign, gotten a passport, etc and somehow some random reporter and a few pundits staring at the documentation he's provided has 'discovered' what all those experts couldn't?

"To Karen"--you have mixed up a few apples & oranges.

As Karen says, 8 USC 1401(c) is not the legal provision at issue. The legal question is whether either Obama (who is alleged to have been born outside the territorial US) or McCain (who is known to have been so) is a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution.

The non-binding resolution may, as you say, show how the intent of the current Congress (about Article II). But the current Congress did not write the Constitution, so what they think doesn't matter. The issue is what the Founding Fathers meant, which is for the courts to decide.

Goodguyex: Obama has been in the public eye since his speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004. He has written two books and has a highly informative web site. If you sincerely want to know about him, go check them out.

Karan "Anyone ask Bill for HIS birth certificate?"

Nope.

Karen Brown: "Nobody knew much about Bill Clinton, outside of Arkansas."

That's not true. From the time he was elected Governor of Arkansas at the age of 32, Clinton was news. I remember how as early as 1980 various news magazines would include him in their listings of "people to watch" or "America's most promising leaders under 40."

Twenty-five plus years ago, Clinton was the Bobby Jindal of his time. Like Jindal, he had been a Rhodes Scholar and a political boy wonder. Add to that, in Clinton's case, a wife who symbolized the "career woman" model that became ascendent in the 1970s and 1980s.

Obama, by contrast, was an obscure state senator as recent as four years ago. His election to the US Senate in 2004 was made possible by his crony friends in the Cook County political machine who managed to get divorce proceedings involving his two principal opponents unsealed at the beginning of the campaign season. Both opponents dropped out. This scenario reminds me of the movie "Omen II."

We know very little about Obama. Apparently he likes it that way.

They've done the exact same thing with Obama.

Anyone who pays attention to political news has known about Obama for at least four years. He was saying the guy was an unknown until 6 months ago.

Heck, Obama declared his candidacy a year ago. So I have no idea why they hadn't heard of him at least from that time on.

Nitpicker: "You personally may know very little about Obama. But if so, it's because you haven't been paying attention. If you want to be better informed, go read his books and his website (rather than relying on internet gossip) and learn about him."

Like the candidate you support, you're unaware of your own arrogance. What a condescending thing to say ("you haven't been paying attention"). Besides, what intelligent voter is going to depend on a self-serving autobiography or some campaign website to make up their mind about a candidate?

His first book ("Dreams from My Father") is filled with artful fabrications. The self which Obama portrays in his book is in many ways an invention. This was among the conclusions which both the Chicago Tribune and the Boston Globe drew in the lengthy multi-part profiles of Obama which both newspapers published in 2007. The reporters at both newspapers interviewed the people in Obama's life and found a pattern of discrepancies between the actual truth about Obama and the portrait he paints in his books.

Nitpicker, the junior senator from Illinois should heed the advice of Illinois' greatest statesman: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and fool all of the people some of the time ... but you can't fool all the people all of the time."

Be careful, BO, that you don't get stuck in your own BS!

They are making a distinction between three categories.

Naturalized citizens (people who were previously citizens of other countries who go through the legal immigration process to become US citizens).

Citizens at birth. That's anyone who is born on US territory or has at least one parent who is a US citizen at the time of their birth.

And finally, a 'natural born citizen'. Which some argue is somehow different from the previous two categories. That's where how much time your parent was a 'citizen' after they were 16, how much time your parent has spent in the US, etc, comes in.

None of these factors change being a US citizen at the time of their birth. If you are born in Mexico from two US parents who are under 23, nobody states that you aren't an American.

Nobody is claiming that either McCain or Obama is a citizen, period, even though neither one has gone through the naturalization process. Nor that they are illegal immigrants.

Therefore, they believe there is a third category between being a citizen at the time of your birth, and being a citizen through the legal naturalization process.

"And finally, a 'natural born citizen'. Which some argue is somehow different from the previous two categories. That's where how much time your parent was a 'citizen' after they were 16, how much time your parent has spent in the US, etc, comes in. "

No, if you read the statute, this is clearly part of the test set up in the statutory definition. Later-TK

The reason why many people want to confirm Obama's birth certificate and native-born status and not Bill's is due the reality of "profiling". Plain and simple.

And we are damned if we do (profiling) and damned if we don't.

TK: You advance some good arguments for an expansive definition of "natural born Citizen" under Article II. But, until the relevant courts accept them, they are just that: arguments. As things now stand, we don't have a definitive statement from the courts, so it's still an unsettled area of law. We can make predictions, but that's all.

As you say, the courts probably really, really, don't want to decide this, since the fall-out from the last election hasn't cleared up yet. If I were a judge, I'd hope that McCain doesnt' win! Obama says he was born in Hawaii, has produced a certification of his birth, and Hawaii is now confirming the validity of that certification (so says the St. Petersburg Times, at any rate; my post with the link to that story has been held up here for review). So it appears there's no longer an issue where Obama's concerned, only in the case of McCain.

From today's gun control case (Heller v. DC): "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope is too broad." This doesn't tell us how Article II ("natural born citizens") will be interpreted, but it does tell us the approach that will be used.