Southern Baptist pastor appeals suit over Obama's birth

(RNS) Southern Baptist gadfly Wiley Drake will appeal a court's dismissal of his suit claiming President Obama was not born in the U.S. and is ineligible for the presidency.

Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate but Drake and others in the "birther" movement claim he is not a natural-born citizen. Drake, a former vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has prayed for Obama's death and led a Baptist boycott of the Walt Disney Co. He is a pastor in California.

Nathan Oleson, a law clerk with the conservative U.S. Justice Foundation, said Thursday (Oct. 28) that Drake will appeal the case to the California Supreme Court.

Drake argues that California's secretary of state erred in not determining Obama's eligibility. But a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal unanimously upheld a lower court's dismissal of his complaint.

"The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states' election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results," the court ruled on Monday (Oct. 25).

Oleson said a similar case awaits a hearing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Join the Conversation

Comments

Obama's birth certificate

Attn Birthers: I found a Kenya BC (Obama's?):

http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certific...

Obama's fake Birth certificate

Based on absolutely no obejctive evidence, Adelle M. Banks simply restates Obsama's press releases regarding hiseligibillity for the presidency.

First of all if the author checks the letters and other documents regarding Presidential eligibility written by America's founder she would know that regardless of Obama's place of birth, he will never qualify as a natural born citrizen due to his father's British citizenship.

Also, there absolutely no objective evidence to support a Hawain birth. The suspicious document posted online has been deemed fraudulent by numerous authorities and even by Obama's own admission is not a "Birth certificate," but "Certificate of Live Birth" which is a totally different document with little or no meaning in reference to Presidential eligibility.

The COLB posted online certifies only that an individual was born alive somewhere, not necessarily in Hawaii or the U.S. If not a forgery, he has self idenfitied as ineligible for the office of President because the COLB is the document used almost exclusively by those born outside the Hawaii for purpose of employment and licenses. By posting it as evidence of his eligibility without a "Birth Certificate" and witholding the documents on which a true Birth Certificates is based, he proved himself, not to have been born in Hawaii and because the spurious document states otherwise, it is even more obviously fraudulent.

Judges appointed by Bill Clinton and his ilk refuse to hear the eligiblity cases on technicalities generated and defended by the attorneys on whom Obama has spent in excess of one million dollars.

Drake's case is obviously based on sound fact and on right versus wrong, but attorneys have no interest in right and wrong. They are interested only in legal and illegal. The ruling is based not on law, but on the ridiculous 'we know best' principle presently being pursued by the Democrat socialist policies.

The author should conduct unbiased research.

Nothing fake but birther's arguments

> there absolutely no objective evidence to support a Hawain birth

Yes, if one assumes that the entire world is in on the conspiracy, including all Hawaiian officials who say Obama was born in Honolulu.

> has been deemed fraudulent by numerous authorities

No, so far these "authorities" are limited to two anonymous Internet "experts" who haven't even seen the COLB in the flesh.

> is not a "Birth certificate," but "Certificate of Live Birth"

You got it doubly wrong here. First, it's a "Certificat*ion*" - usually birthers thrive on that being different from "Certificate".
Besides, only in birther's dreamland is a "certificate of birth" (or "certification", for that matter) something different than a "birth certificate".
Just like a "court order" is no different from an "order of the court" or an "issuance of order by the court".

> the COLB is the document used almost exclusively by those born outside the Hawaii

That's wrong, too. You can't get a Hawaiian COLB stating your birthplace as "Honolulu" unless you were born there.
If you claim the contrary, why don't you show your Hawaiian COLB, if it's so easy to get one regardless where you were actually born?

> defended by the attorneys on whom Obama has spent in excess of one million dollars

Another made-up "fact" with no basis in reality. On the contrary, many birther cases were dismissed with the plaintiffs ordered to pay Obama's lawyers' fees.

> Drake's case is obviously based on sound fact

No, it's based on vague baseless allegations, rumours, hearsay and defamation. No sane judge anywhere in the world would hear a case with no evidence at all.

> Based on absolutely no obejctive evidence

There is absolutely no objective evidence Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. Neither is there any objective evidence that he is not a natural born citizen, unless you call a selective biased and limited view on the historic facts "objective evidence".

Total denial

What do you mean "no objective evidence?" A copy of the president's birth certificate can be seen all over the internet. The governor of Hawaii has publicly vouched for its authenticity. Are you just in total denial?

Obama's fake Birth certificate

Based on absolutely no obejctive evidence, Adelle M. Banks simply restates Obsama's press releases regarding hiseligibillity for the presidency.

First of all if the author checks the letters and other documents regarding Presidential eligibility written by America's founder she would know that regardless of Obama's place of birth, he will never qualify as a natural born citrizen due to his father's British citizenship.

Also, there absolutely no objective evidence to support a Hawain birth. The suspicious document posted online has been deemed fraudulent by numerous authorities and even by Obama's own admission is not a "Birth certificate," but "Certificate of Live Birth" which is a totally different document with little or no meaning in reference to Presidential eligibility.

The COLB posted online certifies only that an individual was born alive somewhere, not necessarily in Hawaii or the U.S. If not a forgery, he has self idenfitied as ineligible for the office of President because the COLB is the document used almost exclusively by those born outside the Hawaii for purpose of employment and licenses. By posting it as evidence of his eligibility without a "Birth Certificate" and witholding the documents on which a true Birth Certificates is based, he proved himself, not to have been born in Hawaii and because the spurious document states otherwise, it is even more obviously fraudulent.

Judges appointed by Bill Clinton and his ilk refuse to hear the eligiblity cases on technicalities generated and defended by the attorneys on whom Obama has spent in excess of one million dollars.

Drake's case is obviously based on sound fact and on right versus wrong, but attorneys have no interest in right and wrong. They are interested only in legal and illegal. The ruling is based not on law, but on the ridiculous 'we know best' principle presently being pursued by the Democrat socialist policies.

The author should conduct unbiased research.

Obama's Birth Certificate

Anonymous posting at 11:47 a.m. does not know what he/she is talking about.

1, The COLB is the standard document issued by the State of Hawaii as a birth certificate. It is issued by a government and certifies the date and place of birth of a person and therefore legally functions as birth certificate, whatever Its title may be. It is subject to full faith and credit and will be recognized as proof of birth by any court in the United States.

2. Obama's COLB states that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in August, 1961. He therefore was born in the United States and is thus a natural born citizen under a couple of hundred years of legal precedent.

ARE “BIRTHERS” JUST CRAZY, OR WHAT?

I would proudly call myself a "Birther," yet,

I believe Obama is, or was, a U.S. citizen. But he provides no credible proof of this.

I believe he was probably born in Hawaii. But no one has provided proof of this.

I don't believe he was born in Kenya. But there is no proof of that, either.

I have sworn, as has Obama, “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So, this drives my inquiry

But the likelihood that this man is a "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution, is very, very unlikely. He does not appear to meet the legal tests of "jus soli" AND "jus sanguinis” in a unified way.

The term jus sanguinis describes a person born of parents who are citizens and jus soli describes a person born in the country. There was no "Unity of Citizenship" at the time of his birth to make him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This is a specific category of citizenship UNDER OUR FUNDEMENTAL LAW. One must be natural born to be President. Dual citizens cannot be natural born. Such has been a requirement of the U.S. Constitution since the beginning of the Republic.

Inasmuch as Barrack’s father was a British subject at the time of his birth, he cannot be a "natural born citizen." Further, his mother was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship (at least 5 years over the age of 14). Gone jus sanguinis! Hence, not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, maybe only a U.S. citizen, which is NOT ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT.

In addition to that, he was later adopted and renamed by a foreigner, Lolo Soetoro, when he was a child, and undoubtedly lost his U.S.citizenship then, which he may have gotten under the principle of "jus soli."

He was at one point a citizen of Indonesia, a country that required proof-certain of his Indonesian citizenship. Otherwise "Barry Soetoro" could not have attended school there. This adoption probably stripped away his American citizenship entirely, requiring it to be restored through a legal process, if it ever was. Also, there should have been a legal name change, of which no one can produce a record. These loose ends could be problematic. The consequense could be nullification of every order, proclaimation and law promulgated during Obama’s term as “President.”

An ugly fact here is that Barrack Obama has spent well over a million and a half dollars, much of it taxpayer money, to obstruct access to the truth about his birth, background and eligibility. We do not even have credible evidence of his hospital birth in Honolulu. Why is that? People in Hawaii understandably would like to celebrate the details of his birth, but credible details are “hazy.”

Why are so many documents, which go to the issue of his citizenship, hidden or lost? Why can we not know his true identity? Why would he ever allow his election campaign operatives publish such an amateurish forgery of his "birth certificate" on the internet? Why will he not quickly assure us that he is truly a natural born citizen?

Regardless of all these legal twists and turns, Obama will not provide a skeptical America with a genuine record of his birth or legal and academic past, documents that, if exposed, would cause him enormous embarrassment and legal difficulties. The exposure of these documents, which will inevitably come out, may also cause a Constitutional crisis, and a market nightmare for the country, if the timing is off. A bad thing for a man claiming to love transparency.

Our Founding Fathers placed this requirement for (only) the President to be a natural born citizen to protect our country from foreign influence. There are some out here who feel a strong foreign influence in the words and actions of this "radical president." Some days it seems like Barack Obama shows a lot more devotion to foreign ideas, such as Marxian Socialism, Islam and world government, than to our Founders' American ideals of individual liberty, private property and limited government. That is why the examination of Obama's most untransparent past is so compelling.

More allegations, speculations, vagueness...

> He does not appear to meet the legal tests of "jus soli" AND "jus sanguinis” in a unified way.

He doesn't have to, because "ius sanguinis" is only claimed by the de Vattelists who have been debunked in more detail elsewhere; rehashing that would exceed the scope of what I can post here.

> he was later adopted

Do you have proof? I think the birthers would build you an altar if you had. Or do you just "believe"? Is birtherism an official religion by now?

> Dual citizens cannot be natural born. Such has been a requirement of the U.S. Constitution since the beginning of the Republic.

No. The constitutional requirement is "born under the jurisdiction of the US". The "not owing allegiance to any foreign country" was invented later to allegedly "mean the same".

Besides, what if Canada enacts a law today that all US citizens are also Canadian citizens? That would make any child born as of tomorrow a dual citizen, by your argumentation a non natural born citizen, thus ridding the entire nation of natural born citizens within a generation. Wouldn't *that* be a massive threat to the Constitution?

> Otherwise "Barry Soetoro" could not have attended school there.

Another unproven allegation. There is no proof anywhere that Indonesia, at the time, allowed education only to its citizens.

> Barrack Obama has spent well over a million and a half dollars

And yet another birther myth without any solid foundation. Where did you get those numbers? Make them up?
Isn't it, on the contrary, true that most birther cases ended with the plaintiffs being ordered to pay the defendent's costs?

> amateurish forgery of his "birth certificate" on the internet

Despite that being another allegation, it doesn't matter because (Republican) Hawaiian authorities have confirmed Obama was born in Honolulu.

What more does it take for you, do you want to go there and see for yourself? Or who would you "believe"?

> Why will he not quickly assure us that he is truly a natural born citizen?

Because birthers can never be "assured". Just look at all the claims already made about his Hawaiian records having been "doctored" or "falsified". You wouldn't believe in anything that contradicts your preconceived opinion, so why bother?

Your entire posting is a thoughtless meritless baseless rehash of all the birther claims which have been debunked a myriad of times on the Interwebs.

Join the Conversation via Facebook

To post a comment, log inregister, or use the Facebook comment box.