Dec 05 2008

Will USSC Drive A Stake Through The Cult Of The COLB?

The US Supreme Court is considering one of many silly lawsuits questioning Obama’s US Citizenship – which I addressed for a while before boredom and good dose of bewilderment set in with the Cult of The COLB (aka, Certificate Of Live Birth). In the face of ever mounting evidence that Obama is a US Citizen, born to a US Citizen in the state of Hawaii, the COLB cultists keep stretching their credulity to the point of fantasy that there is still a chance Obama is not a US Citizen.

I hope the USSC takes up the case simply to drive a stake through this nonsense. It does not help the already busted image of the conservative movement to be associated with zealots of wild conspiracy theories. To be considered for serious leadership positions conservatives need a modicum of seriousness. The ones failing the test of readiness and credentials for office are those who fail the credibility requirements, not the person who has been elected and is about to take office as POTUS. It is topics like this one which make me happy to be unaffiliated with any party. We have the 9-11 conspiracy nuts on the left, and the COLB conspiracy nuts on the right.

With the sane and weary ‘moderates’ in the middle wondering when the hell politics will get out of the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Update: Michelle Malkin and I agree on something again!

32 responses so far

32 Responses to “Will USSC Drive A Stake Through The Cult Of The COLB?”

  1. lurker9876 says:

    Take a look at USS code 1401:

    two links:

    Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


    § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    According to this code, it’s more complicated than just a single parent’s US citizenship, especially if Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    For Obama to clear this up, all he had to do was to produce his birth certificate.

  2. CTN says:


    If I could interrupt your diatribe for a moment, I’d like to note that you really are uninformed in this controversy and I would point to this post as exhibit A to prove the point and your confused equivocation between the terms “US citizen” and “natural born citizen” would be Exhibit B.

    The case before SCOTUS was brought by New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio, who did not predicate his argument on Obama’s COLB — whether of your so-called Cult or not. Rather, he predicated his argument on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which contrary to your adamant and unsubstantiated assertions remains a term without a clear definition. In fact, SCOTUS has never defined it.

    Before you start calling me names, which in logic is called the fallacy of the abusive ad hominem, I suggest that you actually try to prove every assertion you made in this post, as well as the comments thread, and by “prove” I mean support your statements with facts, which are not the same as more name calling from the Slate, Michelle Malkin, etc. I am confident that if you approached this question logically, you would see why Justice Thomas took the case and why SCOTUS has presumably taken the weekend to chew on it.

    One last thought: if it’s a lock that Obama is a “natural born citizen,” as you and others insist, then can someone explain why he hasn’t established this as a point of fact pursuant to lawful means provided by the state of Hawaii or the federal court system. After all, he’s a Harvard-trained constitutional attorney who also taught constitutional law on the side.

    PS: Just got notice of this comment, which appears to be extremely well informed.

  3. AJStrata says:


    Nice try, but the law is clear as the zealots are confused. As to why Obama doesn’t stop the lunatic right from looking stupid, I will leave it to the readers to solve that mystery!

    LOL Too funny.

  4. CTN says:


    Once again you have made more unsubstantiated assertions and you reduced yourself to more name-calling. LOL is right, but methinks the joke’s on you. Thank you for proving my point.

  5. ivehadit says:

    Just to be clear, because I read this on another site… If Osama Bin Laden married an American woman and they had a child. That child could be President of the United States?

    On another site, someone was explaining that, no, the child could not because the Founding Fathers did not want split allegiances. The child would not be a natural born citizen but rather would have duel citizenship which is what they sought to ban. Is that true?

  6. AJStrata says:


    The lunatic fringe proves the point every day. I only comment on them.


  7. dave m says:

    I’m going to have to take AJ’s opinion very seriously because he proved
    his viewpoints are never wrong in last November’s elections!

    Let the Supreme Court rule on the cases, that will be sufficient.
    One would think experts could refrain from commenting if they decide
    to take the cases.

    I say cases because there are several. Donofrio’s case is trying
    the question of whether the Consitution can confer the natural born citizen
    phrase on someone, even if born in America, who then acquires dual
    citizenship. Donofrio argues that the framers intended to specifically
    disallow dual citizenship.

    If the Supreme Court does not take these cases there will be many more,
    including criminal defense cases both individual and corporate based on
    the defense that no law has been broken because Obama cannot sign
    anything into law, as he is not the president. This strategy is already
    being planned and benefits from the expanded power of subpoena
    available to criminal defendants. IObama will be dogged every day
    of his life until he unseals his documents or goes away.

    This is not the time for smug superiority. There are important issues
    here, and it has happened before, in 1880.

  8. dave m says:

    Big Cult Leader Alan Keyes has written an article o n the endoing of our
    Constutional Federal Republic.

    Mr. Keyes was one of the Presidential candidates and appears to be

    Here’s a snippet:

    At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first “African-American” president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of “race” relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.

    The whole article is here:

  9. dave m says:

    Oh-oh, further cult alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pamela Geller – Atlas Shrugs, c’mon can you be any more of a cult??
    She says this:

    Despite all efforts by big media, big blogs, Democrafascists, and Republican cowards to ignore or worse quash the story, the folks just want to know.

    Broe v Reed‏ (hat tip

    December 6, 2008

    James Broe and 11 other Washington voters have filed in Washington’s Supreme Court to have the votes cast for Senator Obama set aside, because he failed to establish that he was even an American citizen running under his own name at the time of the election, let alone a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. Unlike other cases that have been dismissed for lack of standing, these plaintiffs have standing under a unique Washington statute that allows any registered voter to challenge the election of someone who, at the time of the election, was ineligible to hold the office.

    The Secretary of State’s office has already admitted it did nothing to determine Senator Obama’s eligibility, and Senator Obama hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence to prove he was born in the United States that would establish his eligibility, although the burden to prove his eligibility was placed on him by the rules of the national Democrat Party. Counsel for the plaintiffs Stephen Pidgeon had only a two word comment: “case closed!”

    Attorney at Law, P.S.

    Documents in Broe v Reed‏:

  10. LetsGetReal says:


    Source: Barack Obama’s own website
    quote: “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    KENYAN CITIZENSHIP ADMITED BY OBAMA’S OWN WEBSITE (originally a british citizenship at the time)

    Source: US Constitution
    quote: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”

    So what is the difference between a Citizen of the United States at the time of Adoption of the Constitution and a “natural born citizen”?

    Why has Barack Obama spent so much money fighting lawsuit after lawsuit, rather than paying $10 for a certified copy of his vault (long form) birth certificate?
    Price: $10
    source: Hawaii Department of health website

    Anyone born in the US is legally a US citizen, anyone born of US citizen parents or parent is legally a US citizen, but who is considered a natural born citizen?

    What did the framers of the Constitution have in mind when they included this verbiage in Article II of the US Constitution?

    Should we just ignore it? Are we in titled to have this explained? And should the SCOTUS hear this case?

    There are also some concerns about inconsistencies with his Selective Service registration form.
    source: Debbie Schlussel
    quote: “Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions”

    It could all be sour grapes from people that didn’t vote for Obama, but, do we have the right to know if one thing leads to the other?

    Is it all a related logical sequence of events. Barack Obama was relatively unknow up to 2 years ago. There are several question marks regarding his background.

    Several states have admitted to having not fully vetted Obama and declined to provide information by stating that they are not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rather by the Public Records Act (PRA).
    Source: MoniqueMonicat
    quote: “Secretary of State Requests for Documents, Sample Letter, Responses in regards to request for Obama records”

  11. dave m says:

    About a week ago, Pravda ran an article mocking the USA
    for electing an obvious fake con man to the White House.
    So what does it mean if Pravda mocks Obama?

    I think it likely that Putin would have been asked about running
    the article before publication. Putin said “Da”.

    The KGB message to Obama:

    We know who you are.
    The KGB is neither stupid nor idle.
    We got you.
    You will do as we want or the file comes out
    and it’s dasvedanya time for you.

  12. Frogg says:

    Here’s a thoughtful article on this issue by American Thinker in response to Horowitz’s op-ed:

    Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

    It covers a lot of the areas everyone seems to be confused over and brings reason to the debate.