Geller retraces the birth certificate controversy to a seemingly harmless request of Obama by National Review Online's Jim Geraghty to release his birth certificate to establish his age and natural born citizen status just as John McCain had dutifully done earlier in the campaign when he produced his original birth certificate, as difficult as that might have been for him to do. Yes, his original birth certificate showed his mother gave birth to him in Panama where his father was serving in the Navy and he wasn't hiding from the fact. Instead, he relied upon reasoned legal opinions and a supporting resolution of the U.S. Senate to deal with the issue head on, although it didn't stop liberals from filing lawsuits challenging his natural born status and it didn't definitively settle his natural born status.
In response to Geraghty's request, Daily Kos produced a document purporting to be a Certification of Live Birth for Obama showing his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii. The blogger, Jay McKinnon, later confessed it was a forgery after several document experts questioned its authenticity. Another birth certificate, which looked similar to McKinnon's fake birth certificate, appeared on the FightThe Smears site purporting to be Obama's genuine birth certificate--at least a certification of his birth, if not the original, recorded birth certificate. Gellar writes, "Israel Insider asked the key question: 'Why would a presidential campaign that has its own ‘Fight the Smears’ website rely on a radical left-wing blog like Daily Kos to post its official documents, especially one as sensitive and controversial as a birth certificate?'" She adds, "And all this was going on while McKinnon was admitting that he had produced a false birth document." Geller then goes on to point out that the authenticity of the low resolution COLB produced as Obama's official birth certificate also appeared to be a fake according to at least one document expert she consulted. Geller accurately depicts how this mess unfolded thereafter:
When I broke the story and presented his very extensive and meticulously documented analysis, we welcomed peer review. Nobody stood up. Nobody would touch it. To their credit, the supporters of Hillary Clinton (the “PUMA” bloggers) did much to investigate and advance the story. And while the Obama Chicago attack machine and left-wing smear merchants went into full swing, the mainstream activist media would not touch the story. Not once.Geller hits it out of the park with this line, "We, the American people, are not the enemy here, we are not the guilty party." She adds, "The media should stop blaming the victim." Obama's refusal to produce his original birth certificate information has produced this "carnival of conspiracy" that has become "a deliberate distraction from the real issues and the real destruction being wrought by the Obama administration" Geller says.
I never proposed that any of the various scenarios being put forth were absolutely correct. I said at the time, “Do I believe Obama was born in Hawaii? Probably. Is there something on Obama's birth certificate he does not want us to see? Foe shizzle. Should a president of the United States have to present his vault copy to take office? Absolutely.”
I said that forensically, the COLB Obama had presented was an altered document. And I stand by that to this day. A release of the vault copy would have put this baby to bed a year ago. Instead, Obama and his operatives added fuel to the fire by not only not releasing the vault copy, but by spending upwards of a million dollars on five law firms to fight its release.
Here we are a year later, and this issue is on fire. Why? Perhaps because the American people, in their sudden desperation at having made a shotgun wedding, are looking for an annulment. And just as you couldn’t get Al Capone on his heinous crimes of murder and racketeering, but got him on tax evasion, so they hope they can get Obama on this technicality regarding eligibility. Obama’s refusal to release the vault copy has only increased interest, with the speculation now creating a veritable birth certificate circus.
There might be something more sinister at work here, both specifically in the release of the spurious Kenya birth certificate and generally in the persistence of this issue. Perhaps all the documentation on Obama’s birth certificate and citizenship is in order. There is no way of knowing. I suspect that the administration has a hot little document that will wash away Obama’s sins and make the concern about this issue look silly.
And that may be just the point. In this entire affair, the left has consistently been playing by Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Rule 5 states: “ ‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”
In what could be considered a psyop on the American people, the birth certificate issue is being used to smear the Republicans in general as “birthers,” conspiracy nuts who have given themselves over to right-wing nuttery. Any mention of this issue inspires in many the same revulsion as being diagnosed with the clap did in the ‘50s. And the arrogance and fear on the right of being tainted by this issue has created such dissension and infighting that we’re eating our young — and the left is positively giddy.
Aside from the birth certificate controversy, there remains the irrefutable fact that Barack Obama was born the son of a Kenyan citizen over whom the British government exercised jurisdiction regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on the planet Krypton. The weight of legal authority from the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution suggests that his father's citizenship status disqualified his children from becoming "natural born citizens" eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Natural born citizens are those persons born of two citizens of the United States on American soil. Fellow blogger and attorney Leo Donofrio sums the issue up best: "The question presented then is whether the U.S. is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be commander in chief of our military."
That many modern-day legal experts and liberals and conservatives alike have total contempt for the natural born citizen requirement is a given. As four U.S. Supreme Court justices were prepared to do with the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment, these modern-day pundits want to simply write out the natural meaning of "natural born citizen." As Donofrio points out, it was Alexander Hamilton who originally proposed an eligibility requirement that would suit these modern-day pundits: "No person shall be eligible to the Office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States." Our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay explained to George Washington why he thought the natural born citizen requirement necessary:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.Congress imposed the natural born citizen requirement in only one place in the U.S. Constitution--the eligibility to become president of the United States. Plainly stated, a natural born citizen is not the same as a person who is deemed statutorily under our immigration laws to be a citizen at birth. Accepting Obama's birth in Hawaii, he became a citizen at birth by virtue of our Immigration and Nationality Act, but he does not satisfy the natural born citizen requirement. A "natural born citizen" is not found in any federal law. The original Congress took a stab at defining the term as follows:
The 'Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization', enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."The subject of this statute was "children of the United States . . . born . . . out of the limits of the United States." The statute deemed these children of U.S. citizens "natural born citizens," subject to the limitation that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. This law was subsequently repealed, perhaps because members of Congress reverted to the long-held belief that constitutional terms should not be the subject of a statutory definition. Later statutes defined citizens to include persons such as Obama born on U.S. soil but whose father was a citizen of another country. What is clear is that the original Congress which wrote that statute understood a "natural born citizen" to include only those born of U.S. citizen parents.
Donofrio makes a point that is missed on everyone in the news media, including what should be inquisitive presidential scholars. Every past president of the United States has a plaque or some other commemoration of the spot where the president was born. "Where do we place your plaque, President Obama?" Donofrio asks. For God's sakes, at least let us confirm the specific hospital at which you were born in Honolulu, and the name of the doctor who attested to your birth. Or was your birth attested to by a family member as Hawaiian law also permitted to be done to obtain a valid recorded birth certificate? President Gerald R. Ford was born Leslie Lynch King and President Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe, as recorded on their original birth certificates. So they were adopted by their step-fathers and their parents changed their names? What's the big deal? What are you hiding, Mr. President?