Active Duty Soldier Joins Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Right to Serve as President

lieuttwoLt. Scott Easterling has entered a novel fight while serving in Iraq: he is suing President Barack Obama. Easterling is calling the President an “impostor” and challenging his right to issue commands while his birth status is in question. It is one of a series of lawsuit challenging the right of the President to serve on the basis of his birth status. It appears that he could be joined by Senator Richard Shelby in the litigation. Shelby has refused to accept Obama citizenship until he sees a birth certificate.

Easterling is supporting challenges filed by California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedom Foundation. He issued a statement: “As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,” wrote Scott Easterling in a “to-whom-it-may-concern” letter.

The statement will raise an interesting question for an active soldier. It appears that Lt. Easterling is still following orders and he does have a right to file a lawsuit. However, calling the Commander-in-Chief an “impostor” in an out-of-court statement could be the grounds for discipline under the military code. Here is the statement that he released to the public:

To Any and All Interested Parties,
As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the Office of President of The United States. He has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility. In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.
Until Mr. Obama releases a “vault copy” of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor.
My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action.
I joined the Army at age 40, after working in Iraq as a contractor with KBR in ‘05/’06. I chose to work with KBR to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised it’s maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of Basic Training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent Basic Officer Leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly therafter deployed to Balad, Iraq. I was promoted to 1LT on Feb. 2, 2009 and I have approximately five months remaining of our fifteen month deployment.
I implore all Service-members and citizens to contact their Senators and Representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced.
Very Respectfull,
Scott R. Easterling
1LT OD/LG
United States Army

[Update: Now a second soldier has reportedly joined Easterling in his challenge to the President’s legitimacy.

The case may follow the same course as the court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada for his public comments against the Iraq war. His case led to some novel appeals and a mistrial. 225px-lt_ehren_watada

253 thoughts on “Active Duty Soldier Joins Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Right to Serve as President

  1. “I joined the Army at age 40, after working in Iraq as a contractor with KBR in ‘05/’06. ”

    Whereas Lt. Watada acted out of conscience (and heroically I might add), that above statement tells me all I need to know about Lt. Easterling’s true loyalties.

  2. John McCain was born in Panama, which was neither the United State, nor a US territory. With some die hard Republican types the hypocrisy drips like the venom of a milked snake. They are equally poisonous.

  3. John McCain released the long form of his birth certificate,Mr.Obama has not. Both of John McCain’s parents are natural born citizens. Mr. Obama’s father was born in Kenya and is not a natural born citizen of the USA. John McCain father wsa serving in the Navy at the time of his birth. Senator Mccain was proven to be eligible to run for the Presidency. If Mr. Obama has nothing to hide,then why has he not released the long form of his birth certificate. Mr. Obama has hired lawyers and spend thousands of dollars to fight anyone who dares ask the question Are you a natural born citizen?

  4. Well since President Obama is this soldier’s commander in chief and said soldier does not recognize the Presiden’t authority, logic would dictate that this soldier should be relieved from active duty and given a dishonorable discharge so he can go back to working for the war profiteers over at KBR. Another point I’d like to make: Do Republicans see the irony in, after eight years of Bush and Cheney using our Constitution as toilet paper, that suddenly they all care so much about the Constitutionality of every issue. Hasn’t the Supreme Court already weighed in on this?

  5. Jane,
    Obama’s birth certificate has been released. He was born in Hawaii, the child of an American parent. The silliness of this argument is underscored by SCOTUS refusing the original case. No case was made at the time on McCain’s right to run for President because the Democrats, unlike the immoral Republican leaders, did not choose to act duplicitously.

    Not only has a birth certificate, with seal been examined, but a birth announcement was made on the next day in Hawaii’s paper of record. The link below is one of many debunking the story. Also contrary to what you’ve probably heard on one of the “hate radio” shows you probably listen to, McCain also was reluctant to release his birth information.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

    What is so sad for our country is that given the horrible problems we face, diehards like you refuse to pull together as Americans and respect our new President. In your limited perspective a President who is not a Republican is not legitimate. You behave like a football fan rooting for your team no matter what happens. When people of your ilk treat US politics in such a fashion, it reveals not only a lack of knowledge about how our government works, but a mentality that is treasonous to our American values.

    Most ironically, you are probably not one of the “Haves and Have Mores” that G.W. Bush called his base. So in essence you are rooting against your own and your family’s best interests. If this political blindness though comes from being an Evangelical Christian, then you are betraying Jesus, despite what your Preacher says. This is so because the current crop of Republican leaders are amoral men, whose God is money and who worship the rich more than they care for the well-being of our country and in this respect they represents traitors to religious values and the American Dream.

  6. Are we really still going on about this? It’s been over four months since the election and over a month since the inauguration. Surely these guys have something better to do with their time than clogging up the court systems with frivolity.

  7. > Mr. Obama has hired lawyers and spend thousands of dollars to >fight anyone who dares ask the question Are you a natural born >citizen?

    This is a typically Limbaugh-esque lie. The State of Hawaii has amply dealt with this as has the Supreme Court. For the record, Jane, it is not necessary for both parents to be American, whether natural-born or naturalized. Obama will release the long form of his birth certificate when the 2000 recount is completed in Florida. Such silliness.

  8. Jane,

    The reason Obama hired the lawyers is that the lawsuits are based on more than just the “birth certificate,” so simply showing the copy wouldn’t make them go away anymore than showing one receipt makes an IRS audit go away.

  9. Jane, this nonsense needs to end. I have followed the various lawsuits and they have been, without exception, frivolous. Had I pursued claims on behalf of my clients with no more merit than the suit filed by Orly Taitz, a fruitcake California dentist with a law degree from an unaccredited law school, I would have been properly sanctioned by the court. The federal judiciary has shown remarkable patience with these people. Where is the “long form” of your birth certificate, by the way? Tell you what, I’ll show you mine if you let me see yours.

  10. I have yet to see any proof that Obama spent any money on a lawyer. In fact, the only time I’ve seen him represented by council is when a DNC lawyer filed a brief in the berg case.

    Just face it, hes black…his middle name is Hussein and he’s just as Ronald Reagan.

  11. What I’d like to know, is how someone who is so intellectually deficient made it through OCS and was awarded a commission?

  12. “…my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action.”

    I would feel his action were more sincere if he’d attemped to arrested any member of the cheneybush administration while they were “visiting” Iraq. At a minimum, he might have refused to serve under a president whose invasion of Iraq was illegal.

  13. Shelby is backing away from any implied challenge to Obama’s status, and there is no indication that he is joining any lawsuit.

    His communications director stated the comments were incomlete and distorted: QUOTE at the meeting, Shelby laid out the Constitutional qualifications for the presidency and said that, while he hasn’t personally seen the president’s birth certificate, he is confident the matter has been thoroughly examined.UNQUOTE

  14. Jane,
    QUOTE

    According to the Associated Press, Obama’s official birth certificate was presented last year during the presidential campaign.

    The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama’s birth, including his parents’ address in Honolulu, that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961. UNQUOTE

  15. While I haven’t followed this topic with any seriousness, from a strictly formalist point of view, the analysis is quite clear.

    Either Obama is or is not qualified under the constitution to serve as president.

    If it is shown that he fails to meet the qualifications, then no amount of popularity, popular vote, court orders or legislation will remedy the problem since none of the foregoing would constitute an amendment pursuant to Article V.

    Then again, who the hell really cares about the law seeing how this nation looked the other way as an Article III Supreme Court, bereft of any textual power of judicial review and strictly prohibited by Article IV’s guarantee of a republican form of government, used the separation of powers doctrine as a urinal puck in appointing G.W. Bush president of the United States.

  16. Seems to me that part of the process of qualifying for candidacy would be proving that one meets the requirements of office before being placed on the ballot. In fact, it should be the first order of business. Surely that was done in this case.

    That being said, this fool appears to be the next Paula Jones. It fits the pattern: gin up a specious accusation (or legal challenge), tie up the target in useless, expensive litigation, use your surrogates in the media (and in the Senate apparently) to drag the target’s name through the mud, and finally have the case tossed out of court, years later, due to lack of merit. But by then the damage has already been done.

    I trust this “officer” will shortly be brought up on charges of insubordination and possibly dereliction of duty.

  17. Bob, Obama is qualified to be President. He was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, in 1961. His mother was an American citizen by birth. He is a natural born United States citizen. His birth certificate has been produced by official in Hawaii.

    These challenges are by a bunch of fools. Go to the web and watch Keyes for a while.

  18. Vince and/or other attorneys,

    If you had a client who had a questionable birth certificate and there was such an uproar as with Mr. Obama, why wouldn’t you advise your client to establish the unequivocal legitimacy of the document? With modern forensics, investigators can determine the age of the paper, ink, and perhaps other age-related aspects of the document. I do not understand why Mr. O or others would not want to settle this issue without doubt.

    Surely, Obama is not be concerned with any potential legal jeopardy; would/should he be concerned? Yes, I think he met the legal requirements; however, I prefer to have definitive evidence to quash—for once and for all—this apparent nonsense of an invalid birth certificate.

  19. The investigators have done everything possible to verify the authenticity of the certificate. The “client” has done everything possible. The officials in Hawaii have certified that the certificate is authentic. Independent examiners have studied it.

    All reasonable people are convinced.

    There is not even a scintilla of evidence suggesting need for more examinations.

    These nuts will never accept any evidence at all.

    Everybody else has moved on.

    Read all about it at Fact Check:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  20. This officer needs to spend more of his time doing the job that he is being paid to do. It has already been well said by others here that the State of Hawaii provided the original and the Supremes, a very Republican Supreme Court, already denied a hearing on this issue. Case closed. Former Fed, Vince provided you with a link so that your concerns can be dealt with, besides, since when do states give up original documents like birth certificates, without court orders? I will agree that Obama should request the original be delivered to a neutral 3rd party expert as soon as George W. Bush provides the original documents from his Air National Guard unit to prove he was not AWOL.

  21. lets see, Mrs. Obama had little Barack in Kenya and was so sure he would be president someday she faked his birth certificate and quickly moved to the islands so she could establish his American citizenship, then she married a muslim man and moved to Indonesia so there could be doubts about whether he is a muslim or a christian. Then she went to live with her parents in Kansas so he can claim to be a midwestern salt of the earth kind of guy. Then they all moved back to the islands so as to cover the trail so he could be president some day.

    Makes sense to me.

    lets anyone want to blast me, that was humor and I think the issue should be laid to rest unless there is a real “smoking gun”

  22. Thanks for the lead, soonergrunt. Here is the text.

    “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    Elements.

    (1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

    (2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

    (3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

    (4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

    (5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

    Explanation.

    The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

    Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

    Lesser included offense.

    Article 80—attempts

    Maximum punishment.

    Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

  23. Forget Obama’s birth certificate, I want to see the birth certificate of the guy/gal/whatever that Obama and Bush always asks to bless U.S. at the end of each speech. This culprit: “May god bless us, may god continue to bless America (even when he/she/it got us into each mess in the first place). Oh, I forgot, also li’l bobbie Jingle bell’s request during the Republican rebuttal to Obama’s speech to throw in the continuation of god’s blessin’ of Louisiana for all them storms, floods, death, n’ destruction.

    Seems to me this god person has been causin’ a mighty big fuss and ruckus since mankind has walked ‘god’s green earth’. I want to know for sure and for certain—reasonable doubt aint ‘nuff—of this anthropomorphous alien’s place of birth to ensure that he is legally a U.S. citizen to be making all of our *blessed decisions* while whisperin’ in our U.S. Presidents’ ears or echoing *his* voices in their heads.

    We can see Mr. Obama, so I think we all can at least agree that he exists, fake birth certificate or not. However, we caint see god, so I am a bit more suspicious and skeptical of god than I am Obama, just barely though. I ain’t askin’ for god’s DNA, nor even a long-form birth certificate, the short form will suffice. I mean, what if god really is a muslim, Holy Cow!

    For any Active Duty/Reservist Judge Advocates’ out yonder: is god subject to an Article 80? Lindsey Graham would know, but I bet he don’t read this blawg.

    Snarky Turned OFF

  24. FFLEO,

    I LOVED YOUR RANT!!! I am groaning under the weight of all the godblessing as well. It has the same meaning as when I go to a church and everyone is saying, “god bless” or when I went to the hindu temple and the presenter said, “namaste” and launched into a competition.

    (However, I really would like to see GWB’s military papers!)

  25. Hi Jill,

    Whatever someone “believes,” the President of the United States should not be able to make such statements to a captive audience in a government building as a governmental official. If he really “believes” that he can pray to “god” and get blessing instead of having to think and work for the change he is promising, then Mr. Obama is just an African-American version of G.W. Bush.

    I want the man to succeed because we all will fail if he does not. However, I cannot understand how an intelligent person can spew the ‘god bless this n’ that’ while people are hurting and that mysterious strange “god” is currently unavailable for *his* own comments and/or direct blessings.

    I am just a middleclass man, but if I were one of those rich bankers—who are stealing our money—I would spend every dime in a 1st Amendment lawsuit to keep “god’s” name out of government because the president—especially so—must not be a subservient beggar to a vaporous idea somewhere out yonder in the ether.

  26. To all you know-it-alls out there:

    What hospital was BO born in?
    Who was there, Who signed the “certificate”?

    Every valid birth certificate tells you this! I have five in my hand right now, from 4 different states.

    You don’t know the basic facts, You cant say when, where, or who. You are ignorant. This is the United States Constitution!

    BO’s account: “Whell, um, Hawaii somewhere near, um, Kenia, Hawaii. There was a drunk in the alley, mom had a bottle of cheap wine and the drunk was after it, boy did he get a show . . . and, oh, yea, um, grandma told me she put the afterbirth in a baggie in the freezer at work.”

    This issue is NOT going away.

  27. Hi FFLEO,

    I think this group is on crack! Here’s a christian news service saying how govt. elites find god irrelevant–

    “What’s happened is [that] the elitists — the people who run American society, from the public education system to certain governmental institutions and figures — have basically decided that God is irrelevant to public discussion,” says Whitehead during an interview with OneNewsNow. (from Onenewsnow)

    I truly don’t know what these people are talking about. Are they listening to our politicians? I just don’t see how any honest assessment of our political class can make the claim, “that god is irrelevant to the discussion”. It’s pretty much all god, all the time. In fact it’s rather nauseating. I would be much happier if these people showed the power of god in their life, not by shouting to the rooftops about him but by showing kindness and justice in their actions.

    I wasn’t certain what you meant about the bankers. These people are usually VIPs in the church, the mosque and the synagog etc. They use their religiosity in much the same way as the political class–to convince people of their piety so nobody will look too hard at what’s really going on. But tell me what you meant.

  28. roflmao

    My but you are simple creature.

    If that’s your issue that’s not going away, I call and raise you the war crimes of the Bush Administration and the billions of tax dollars wasted on no compete contracts with Halliburton and criminal banking executive bonuses under their watch.

    Read ’em and weep, neocon puppet. Looks like I’ve got a straight flush to your ace high, sucker.

  29. JeffyBoy,
    I won’t dignify you by using your pseudonym because Jefferson was too great a person to be associated with the likes of you.
    Obama’s birth certificate issue by the State of Hawaii doesn’t list the hospital he was born in, nor the person making the delivery. You know what neither does mine and I was born in Brooklyn.

    The truth is though this is not about the Constitution, as Buddha referenced by mentioning Bushes unconstitutional behavior,this is about your guy lost and you don’t like who won. You don’t care one bit about the Constitution because Panama is not the US or an official territory, so McCain’s birth could also be in question. Had he won you would keep your mouth shut, just like you did when SCOTUS stole the 2000 election.

    You are not a patriot, you are more like the football fan who doesn’t protest a wrong call as long as it helps his team, you are more like a sports fan. Too stupid, or stooped in Rush and Sean’s propaganda to have a single independent thought. What is probably the most pathetic about you is that you probably are not one of “the haves and have mores” that Bush called his base, you’re just another working guy who doesn’t vote what’s best for his own interests and acts like a rabid football fan of the Detroit Lions. They also represent the current skills of your political party.

  30. My dear Mr. T. Jefferson,
    You must understand that there is a reason people have declined to supply the evidence which you claim to be necessary to support Pres. Obama’s qualifications under the Constitution. The common law and the rules of evidence have developed over the centuries to accommodate the notion of the “reasonable man.” That is to say, our legal system regards as evidence a statement, writing, photograph or other document which would tend to prove (or disprove) some fact which is material to the issue in dispute. Whether the cumulative evidence in a particular case is sufficient to support a claim or position is determined with reference to whether reasonable men, having heard and considered that evidence, could reach the conclusion that was reached. There is no requirement in the law, nor could there be, that legal determinations must satisfy those with serious mental deficiencies, paranoid delusions or other conditions manifesting themselves in the sort of neurotic fastidiousness of intellect which does not admit of rational deliberation. With all due respect, your comments, both substantively and in their organization, strongly suggest that you occupy one of these unfortunate categories. You should not be surprised, therefore, if thoughtful people appear unwilling to engage you in conversation on anything other than the most trivial matters of daily life.

  31. Yea my dog has one of those “Brooklyn” “birth certificates” too He was born in the laundry room–we don’t know who his daddy was either.

    Cabbage patch dolls come with the “real kind” of “birth certificate”, don’t they?

    Where? Who?–You just don’t know.

  32. Oh, wait, that’s not even an ace, is it? What is that? A joker? Why no it isn’t! It’s an Uno card. “0” points at that. You’re not even playing the right game, Tommy.

  33. Jeffy,
    Your stupidity knows no bounds. You’re just another dumb sucker on the Republican teat. Yes it’s alright for you to sniff at Rush and Sean’s rear ends just like your dog does, perhaps they’ll even let you kiss them there.

  34. You call me “dumb” because YOU can’t answer two simple questions about your messiah. That is rich!

    You don’t know where he was born or who certified the birth.

    You like it when he keeps you in the dark.

    Mushroom ignoramus.

  35. Hmmmmm….Maybe Obama is American-born, maybe not….but McCain also had some problems in that regard. Either way, Ahnold will be brihnging this up in the next election.

    -I’ll be bahck,

    commoner

  36. Jill,

    If I were rich, I would simply spend all of the money I could to ensure the separation of church and state.

    Mike Appleton,

    I appreciate your bits of informative legalese and the wit that accompanies them.

    A question: do you consider that the “may god continue to bless America” and other such religious/god exclamations by our governmental officials during their official duties and while on government property as simply their freedom of speech rights under the 1st Amendment and therefore do not violate the separation of church and state provisions?

    Thanks.

  37. I think God needs to be removed from the currency. The subliminal mental damage to the easily suggestible by having In God We Trust on money has to significant. There is nothing less divine than money and nothing quite as corrupting as worshiping greed.

  38. T. Jefferson:

    Which clause of the Constitution requires the hospital in which the President is born?

    Which clause requires that a doctor sign for his birth?

    The answer is none. The Constitution says only that the President be a natural born Citizen. Nothing else.

    There is reliable, probative evidence, sufficient to every court of law in the land, that he was born in the State of Hawaii. The birth certificate has been certified by Hawaii. Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka signed the certificate. You don’t have to be born in a hospital to be a natural born citizen.

    It is a valid birth certificate and legal public record. Every court case challenging it has either been dismissed or will be dismissed.

    You have nothing. Go back to your slaves. Have them read the Constitution to you.

  39. MikeA:

    “There is no requirement in the law, nor could there be, that legal determinations must satisfy those with serious mental deficiencies, paranoid delusions or other conditions manifesting themselves in the sort of neurotic fastidiousness of intellect which does not admit of rational deliberation.”

    may I have permission to use this? Did you conceive this? If so it is very elegant and most certainly a foot to the throat of any sparring partner.

  40. Mike Appleton:

    “There is no requirement in the law, nor could there be, that legal determinations must satisfy those with serious mental deficiencies, paranoid delusions or other conditions manifesting themselves in the sort of neurotic fastidiousness of intellect which does not admit of rational deliberation”

    While I may agree with your skepticism of any doubts regarding Obama’s pedigree, your reasoning couldn’t be any more fallacious. For, if you adopted your maxim as quoted above as being as universal as you hold it to be, then you’d end up within the same mindset as the Catholic Church that locked up Galileo for expressing the ‘irrational’ idea Psalm 104:5, “the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved,” IS WRONG.

    A pinch of intellectual honesty is a good cure for outcome determinism.

  41. Hey 1L: “reliable probative evidence . . . the atmospherics of the situation . . . every court in the land.”

    Yea, I remeber my first year of law school. You should be writing outlines.

    Fakers hide hard evidence as long as they can (bernie madeoff), but the truth always prevails.

    If BO has the “reliable probative evidence” i.e. a REAL birth “CERTIFICATE” (that is, “certified” by an attending), he is sure not acting like it.

    “tansparency”?!?! HA HA HA HA HA. You kool-aid drinkers believed in him and he short-changed you, bigtime.

    This issue is not going away; and, in the meantime, you look so stupid: “probative evidence . . ..” I love it, thanks for the laugh.

  42. TJ:

    “Yea, I remeber my first year of law school.”

    ***************

    Now that is really funny!

    “Fakers hide hard evidence as long as they can (bernie madeoff), but the truth always prevails.”

    ***************

    I bet Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield hope you’re wrong about that Mr. Barrister.

  43. TJeff,
    What don’t you get? The original birth certificate was approved by the State of Hawaii and the Supremes have already dismissed this poor excuse for a lawsuit. That is the George Bush filled Supreme Court. There is no fake evidence here. The courts have already reviewed the documents and your guys got dismissed. Man up and get over it.

  44. Why do you dummies think anyone cares about Bush?

    In fact, why do keep reverting to Bush, Rush, or any one else?

    It’s like a derangement.

    This board is about Lt. Scott Easterling, his oath to defend The United States Constitution, and the faker sitting in the Oval Office who won’t tell us any meaningful fact about his birth–a constitutional requirement.

    “Yea,” BO says, “honalualu, or, hawaii somewhere or something, here take this piece of paper and shut up . . . transparency, yea, um, tranparency.”

    Can you focus on anything but BUSHHHHHH?

  45. TJ:

    You made the assertion President Obama’s a faker. Now how about proving it, or just slink back to the obscurity you so richly deserve. The State of Hawaii has already made it’s judgment as have the American people. Where’s your proof? Obama need prove nothing.

  46. ‘Cause you’re deranged.
    ‘Cause you know BO is a faker.
    ‘Cause you don’t know where BO was born or who could possibly certify that it actually happened at any particular place, at any particular time.
    ‘Cause you drank the kool-aid and he sukkered you.

  47. TJeff,
    You need to stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush. Obama already proved his birth satisfies the Constitution. As was proved earlier, not all birth certificates give the information that you are imagining is required by the Constitution. President Obama is a U.S. Citizen who was born in the U.S. Case closed.

  48. ‘Cause you’re deranged. – Ad homeniem

    ‘Cause you know BO is a faker. – Ad homeniem and false attribution of knowledge.

    ‘Cause you don’t know where BO was born or who could possibly certify that it actually happened at any particular place, at any particular time. – Simply wrong. The State of Hawaii and the Courts have proven the question to the accepted legal standards. To do more would require a time machine. Unless you have one, you better just get over it.

    ‘Cause you drank the kool-aid and he sukkered you. – That’s simple projection and wishful thinking.
    ___

    That’s not proof, Tommy. That’s pitiful.

    Time to fold your hand, pick up your 37 and half cards, and go home.

  49. Hawaii cannot confirm. And, if they did, it would be viewed as a conspiracy. They already say Lingle is complicit. If the results are not what are desired, it is part of the conspiracy.

  50. Professor,
    I read that Article 88 can be applied to retired military. In that it involves “Contemptuous Speech Against the President”, do you think it may be applied against Major General Childers who wrote such words as:
    “he lies he tells about a range of subjects including perhaps who his biological father really is”

    “all of these says he is a person of mystery, of no integrity, and in fact paints him with the same narcissist paint of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill.”

    “He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger”

    “Other than this, my key short-term complaint is that he has not had a heart attack in office.”

    “then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist.”

    ===========

    Do you think the military will just ignore, or will they take any action?

  51. People,
    The Supreme Court refused the case so it it dead. Secondly, Hawaii did what they are supposed to do. Finally, if you want to look for a conspiracy, take a look at who pays the trolls on this site to bring up nonsense issues.

  52. T. Jefferson:

    Which clause of the Constitution requires the hospital in which the President is born?

    Which clause requires that a doctor sign for his birth?

    You still have not answered the question.

    By the way, Mr. Jefferson, history shows that you owned and bought and sold slaves.

    It shows that you wanted all former slaves mandatorily deported from the United States. Yes, mandatory deportation, not voluntary emigration.

    No wonder that you are shocked to the very core of your being that a man of African descent now serves as President.

    That is because when you wrote that all men are created equal, you meant to say that all free white male property owners are created equal.

    In your eyes, no African American could ever be President.

  53. “‘Cause you’re deranged.
    ‘Cause you know BO is a faker.
    ‘Cause you don’t know where BO was born or who could possibly certify that it actually happened at any particular place, at any particular time.
    ‘Cause you drank the kool-aid and he sukkered you.”

    Jeffyboy,
    You seem to imply that you are a lawyer. Yet you present stuff like above that is the equivalent of a six year old going: Nyah,
    Nyah, Nyah. I bet if your assertion is true that gets you far in courtwork and in writing briefs. Based on your comments thus far anyone who would hire you as a lawyer would either be a fool or a relative, or in your case both.

    To The varied Trolls Like Mimi,Jeffy, et.al.
    You are to be pitied rather then derided. All of you reflect
    the O’Reilly, Hannity, & Rove style of political debate: Make as many wacky assertions as you can and some will stick just by repetition; Don’t worry about lying in your assertions just make sure they slander and fool the rubes; When confronted with questions you can’t answer just make another assertion to change the topic.

    What is so pathetic about all of you is that you’re not the people like O’Reilly, Hannity & Rove that pull the strings, you’re the puppets that dance for them. They have enthralled and enslaved you into their alternate universe and you lack the will or the tools to return to reality. I sincerely mourn for your reality, as I mourn for your lost souls and humanity.
    You once were real children, but you grew up to be controlled robots. That is so sad for you. I pray that you’ll return to patriotism and to God.

  54. Publius:

    Mr. Jefferson also said:

    “We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.”

    “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”

    “There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.”
    (He was talking about slavery)

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

    If I am not mistaken Jeffersons slaves were imancipated upon his death.

    No matter how much you may hate dead white males they have left us an outstanding legacy, which we appear to neither understand nor wish to continue. Historically our republic is an anomaly, one hopes it lasts awhile longer.

  55. I’d also like to point out that to my knowledge, the bulk Jefferson’s slaves were an inheritance from his wife’s father – not something easily refused. If you’ve ever been married, that is a self-evident problem. In addition, he is noted for providing and caring for those in his charge in very humane ways. They were not beaten, starved or forced to live in substandard housing. They had decent clothing. They got medical care when they needed it. They were well fed. He PROTECTED them. And upon his death, he freed them in the hopes they would be able to take the protections he afforded them and build it into a better life. He was also intent on abolishing the notion of slavery in the Declaration, but the political consideration of unity against the British meant he met with stern resistance even from those who agreed with him in principle.

    No, Jefferson lived with slavery, but he most certainly did not approve.

  56. This is pretty ridiculous. If he couldn’t be a soldier under a president he doesn’t like, then the odds are that he should have never joined in the first place.

  57. BIL, not to get off point, but Jefferson’s slave James Hubbard escaped, was captured, and was flogged in front of other slaves at TJ’s order. He eventully escaped for good. So Jefferson did not hold the whip, but he ordered torture and flogging. Some protection. Sorry if you did not know about that. That is a fact. He wrote about it himself in a letter. In the DofI, he dropped a condemnation of George III and the slave trade, not a proposal to free slaves already here. Again, history.

    Bron and BIL, wrong, Washington freed his slaves, but some of Jefferson’s were sold to pay his debts. He maintained a lavish and lordly life style, running up enormous debts, so he needed his slaves. He did not need to run up those debts.

    Jefferson did want to eliminate slavery, by deporting all the slaves. Read Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address, since he talks about it. (Lincoln favored voluntary emigration instead).

    To the modern T. Jefferson, feel good about your namesake. You still have not given us the clauses that require a hospital birth or signature of a doctor. You have nothing. We have a lawfully certified birth certificate. Allan Keyes for President? Only for the nutcases.

  58. Thanks, Publius. That’s why I said “to my knowledge”. I’m a fan of Jefferson, not an expert. But in general, if not specifics, my statements stand. Hey, can you provide a reference for the sale for debt? I’m not doubting you, just curious.

  59. Publius:

    It appears that you are right and I am mistaken. The only reference I can find has him freeing 7 slaves out of a supposed 187 and that was prior to his death.

    The fact that he owned slaves does not diminish his accomplishments. He was as far as I can tell deeply concerned over slavery and predicted the civil war and it being the price the US would pay for slavery.

    Wether they owned slaves or not the founders were brilliant men and gave us a wonderful form of government. It is unfair to apply to them the standards of our day.

  60. Thomas Jefferson is who he was and like many great individuals there were flaws outweighed by the good. To equate this current turkey with him is to give him more cachet than his pitifuls rants require.

  61. BIL asked for a source: Wiki: “The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves (two his mixed-race sons) and petitioned the legislature to allow them to stay in Virginia. After his death, his family sold the remainder of the slaves to settle his high debts.[90]” footnote 90 refers to Merril D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1975), pp. 991-92.

  62. Publius:

    cant you find any other sources? Wiki is good first go around but please find a couple of other sources.

    Anyway I found other sources that mention 7 but no matter, tis a drop in the bucket compared to 187.

  63. Publius,

    I had never read the Wiki entry for Jefferson and it had a couple of tidbits I didn’t know. For example, that Jefferson taught himself Gaelic to read Ossian. Now that’s dedication! And taking Wiki as first blush, sure, I had the specifics of his disposition of his slaves upon his death wrong. Honestly, that was not an area of his life I’ve ever found compelling compared to the rest of his work. It was always a bit tabloid and prurient in my eyes because of the Hemmings issue, so I never gave it a lot of attention. It is worthy to note, however, that the disposition upon his death was the work of his family, a family saddled with bad debt from his father-in-law’s transactions. The very father-in-law that left him the bulk of his slaves to begin with. That he emancipated any slave in his lifetime makes him far superior to most men of his day.

    However, nothing there invalidates Jefferson’s intent in re personal liberty or his general treatment of the slaves in his charge being superior to the practices of the day. Indeed his predictions of the outcome of abolishing slavery being violence is only a matter of timing and scale if you look at the Civil Rights movement – a movement that could have been much bloodier absent the wisdom of MLK. He could see the inherent danger of the practice. He was good at “seeing around corners” as was evidenced by his championing of the Bill of Rights and his immediate and prescient distrust of corporations, but I digress.

    In fact, the Wiki quoted letter to Abbé Grégoire clearly shows his stance on “negroes” when he stated “[N]o person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men . . . ”

    Jefferson was not perfect, no man is, but he proved he was always learning. His dedication to the principles of individual liberty is beyond reproach. That being said, he was a man of his times and particular situations. As such (as Bron pointed out) Jefferson should be evaluated as such. As a man of his times, he was certainly way ahead of the curve. In many ways, he still is.

  64. Get off it, BIL, he ran up debts himself. He had an esapee flogged. Even by the standards of his own day, he was behind the curve in a time when the vast majority of people never owned, bought, or sold slaves. He wanted them forcibly deported. He supported disunion with his Virginia resolution. He was the hero of the rebel slaveowners in the Civil War. He was a hypocrit.

    But he had some good points. He did a first draft of the Declaration. He said and wrote some nice things. So, all you Jefferson lovers out there, keep your hero.

    Even among southern slaveowning founders, Geroge Mason stands up better on slavery.

    Meanwhile, no word from “T. Jefferson” to earlier questions. Why DID you select that pen name, anyway?

  65. I see that I’ve missed several comments that deserve a response:

    FFLEO: I agree with you that it is wearisome to hear every public official finish an address like Tiny Tim at Christmas. But since every public official is free to confirm his or her own belief in a deity, it does not raise any constitutional issues as far as I know. It simply grates on me because I regard it as insincere pandering. In the case of Pres. Obama, he probably feels that if he omits the reference, the “Obama is really a closet Muslim” crowd will fly out of every ideological latrine in the country.

    Bron98: You are welcome to use whatever I have to say for any purpose you wish. Besides, I don’t think we can claim a copyright on stuff we publish to the world. Even though I’d love to be able to crib occasionally from writers who are truly eloquent, I know that I would be found out immediately and exposed to public humiliation. If I am to be humiliated, I’d prefer that it be limited to the deficiencies in my own thinking without throwing plagiarism into the mix.

    Bob, Esq.: Perhaps I don’t understand your criticism. My points were intended to be understood within the context of legal contests. If the date or location of my birth are in dispute, all I need to do is place into evidence the certificate of my birth issued by the government agency responsible for maintaining those records. Under both federal and state rules of evidence, that document constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. The burden then shifts to my opponent. The individuals and groups who have been filing lawsuits do not wish to be bothered by such details. In my opinion, the reason for that is that they are not concerned with either evidence or the rule of law. They are concerned, however, with the fact that someone they despise (for reasons known only to themselves) has been elected to the presidency. They will not be satisfied with any degree of proof. Second, the analogy to the trial of Galileo is not well taken. His crime was theological, asserting a view of the natural world which clashed with established religious doctrine. A modern example is the position taken by creationists. Galileo’s evidence for his beliefs was not relevant to the crimes with which he was charged. I might add that the Catholic Church has matured a great deal in its acceptance of the scientific method. I was exposed to the Jesuits for four years of high school and a brief stint in a seminary. The fundamental principles of natural selection were never questioned by my instructors, nor was there ever any suggestion that the theories of Darwin and his successors were incompatible with religious belief. The anti-Darwinists at large today are a recent phenomenon, theological reactionaries who reject not only science but biblical scholarship as well.

  66. Damn, Buddha:

    That was great!

    Publius:

    Why do you despise Jefferson? I should say how could you despise Jefferson?

    Go read some Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, get another perspective from some real (African) American thinkers.

    Sowell is probably smarter than Jefferson and Williams is a close second.

  67. Bron: Sowell? Walter Williams? Are you kidding? What do they have to do with this?

    BTW, the facts I have stated about Jefferson are correct, as you have found out. We have all heard stuff about history, like the stories of Washington and the cherry tree, that are not correct. A lot of the stuff we have heard about Jefferson is not correct. We are all trying to learn.

    Everybody, look up the quotations on the Jefferson Memorial. They are edited, with words omitted, and others cobbled together. The monument seems to say he hated slavery, but the full quotation added that he never thought ex-slaves could live in our society. The full quoted language does not help us much today.

    Despise? I just pointed out that he said one thing and did another. There is a word for that. You may judge, not I.

  68. Bron,

    I have to agree with Publius about this. To point out the truth about a person is an important act in a democracy, even if that person is beloved. We should know as much as possible about our leaders, even if it makes us uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s possible to truly love or admire another person without knowing who they are/were. It is disrespectful to look the other way about bad behavior. Just call it for what it is and you reevaluate your understanding of a person (which may mean you don’t love or admire them anymore). But if you still do love or admire them, your feelings are not based on ignorance, but on the recognition of who the person is/was, flaws and all.

  69. Well, no bias in that response, Publius.

    As to who ran up the debt, that’s irrelevant. Who chose the method of that disposition after Jefferson’s death? His heirs did. They, not Mr. Jefferson as he was taking a dirt nap at the time, could have chosen to sell Monticello to satisfy those debts. Instead, they sold off the slaves. That would make them the “decider” to maintain their “lavish and lordly life style”. You can’t have a life style or decide the disposition of anything when you’re dead. Jefferson only avoided having Monticello seized by creditors in his lifetime because of of his immense public stature and those credit issues were due largely to the actions and misrepresentations of his father-in-laws estate. Even your beloved Wiki states that. No, I suspect your main problem may not be with Jefferson the man, but Jefferson the white man. How stunningly superficial. I suppose if you oppose suicide, that invalidates the works of Socrates? That if you disapprove of homosexuality, that Leonardo da Vinci’s work is all garbage? That if you despise Islam, that invalidates Abu Sa`d al-`Ala’ ibn Sahl’s work in optics while Europe languished in the Dark Ages? A chip on one’s shoulder is neither an endearing trait nor a good place to base an argument as to another man’s value to society.

  70. Publius:

    you still havent answered my question, it cant be that he owned slaves or that he wanted to send them back to Africa. Those are very simplistic reasons, something more profound fuels your animosity toward Jefferson. I would like to know what it is.

    Jill:

    Bad behavior when? In 2009? Thats like chastising a dog for chasing a cat.

  71. Bron,

    Sorry to not be very clear. I am talking about our nation’s political leaders both in the past and at present. We always need to know the truth.

  72. Jill:

    you were crystal clear, I understood your post. I dont think you can judge Jefferson or any of the founders by todays standards thus my reference to chastising a dog for chasing a cat.

    The nature of a dog is to chase a cat, the dog cant help it. So to humans, we are all (or at least most) creatures of our particular time in history as regards to societal mores. It is a pitty it is so because principals are more important than pragmitism.

    Publius:

    Since Buddha has opened that line, I put Sowell and Williams down as a polite way of saying what Buddha has said. These are men who actually have reasons to hate whitey and who overcame significant obstacles to get where they are today. They are both exceptionally brilliant men who would disagree with your stance on Jefferson in particular and the founders in general.

  73. Publius:

    I consider myself second to none in my admiration for Jefferson, but I must conclude his conduct with respect to his own slaves was shameful. His feelings on the topic were complex and sometimes contradictory depending on when during his lifetime the question was posed. In essence, he was torn between the moral dilemma of the institution and the practical aspects of freeing them and incurring even more debt. The seven slaves he emancipated during his lifetime were from the Hemmings family with obvious implications that have been well-documented, if not cemented into the national consciousness. On the other hand, the great man did say with some sense of remorse in 1814:

    “My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them.”

    As a young legislator he advocated a bill allowing owners to free their slaves. However he also felt that slaves were naturally inferior to freemen in his early life as well. His first draft of the Declaration of Independence strongly condemned the slave trade and he signed a bill outlawing it while in office. Some of his concern about freeing the slaves sprung from his paternalistic feeling (reflected in the quote above)that freed slaves would not be able to survive after emancipation, but some critics would obviously conclude this was more self-interest than benevolence.

    In sum, the Sage at Monticello was a man of his times in this aspect of his morality and much deserving of criticism, however in matters of liberty and human rights he was situated squarely in the future and earned the honor of being, perhaps, freedom’s most eloquent spokesman despite this seeming paradox. The measure of a man includes all his works and deeds, not merely those with which we agree or disagree. By this standard, Jefferson compares favorably to most any citizen this planet has produced, or, in my humble opinion, is likely to produce.

  74. bron98:

    I disagree with you that we cannot judge men of the past by today’s standards. Why not? Has our morality changed in the past 200 years. Was murder, rape, and robbery acceptable behavior in 1776? Was acceptance of slavery as a moral good universal throughout the world in 1800? It is abundantly clear to me that Jefferson understood the depravity of this “peculiar institution,” but for practical reasons turned a deaf ear, and I say this as an admirer, not a detractor. Right and wrong is innate as most of the research shows, and Jefferson understood this better than most:

    “I believe… that [justice] is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816.

    Jefferson would not have wanted this historical excuse, and I do not recognize it either. It is no coincidence to me that in 1814 after penning the beneficent words about the slaves quoted in my post above, Jefferson wrote,as if in remorse, these words about self-interest to his friend, Thomas Law:

    “Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.”

  75. Mespo:

    well said and we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Based on your thoughts wouldnt we have to condemn all great men for one action or another? In the end there are no ideals and nothing to aspire to.

    I think Publius’s condemnation of Jefferson is more than he is white or he owned slaves. I think he disagrees with Jeffersons thoughts on liberty and so he trys to tear down the man to negate his arguments. If Jefferson is a dirty slave owner then nothing he believed in is worthy of study and liberty is something that has no value.

  76. bron98:

    “Based on your thoughts wouldnt we have to condemn all great men for one action or another?”

    ************

    We do not condemn men in most cases merely their actions. As Aristotle said “We are what we repeatedly do,” not what may occur out of the ordinary.

    Plus there is plenty to aspire too; we need only remember that perfection is only approachable not attainable, and we can rejoice in the near perfect deeds of any “great” man.

  77. Hi mespo,

    Could you please provide directions to a resource for a clearer understanding of Thomas Jefferson? Specifically this paragraph:

    “Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.”

    I’ll do the lifting; I would just like a recommendation. Thank you in advance!

  78. CCD:

    I would start with the collected letters of Thomas Jefferson at UVA Library. Here’s the website:

    http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/texts/

    That letter to Thomas Law, Esq which contains that specific passage can be found at:

    http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1814b.html

    For a real treat, read Jefferson’s letters to John Adams. Never have I read a more intelligent discourse among learned persons with the possible exception of this blog on particularly good day. :)

    Here’s a great line from Jefferson to Adams lamenting the anti-intellectualism of the youth of his day. Sound familiar?

    “But why am I dosing you with these antediluvian topics ? Because I am glad to have some one to whom they are familiar, and who will not receive them as if dropped from the moon. Our post-revolutionary youth are born under happier stars than you and I were. They acquire all learning in their mother’s womb, and bring it into the world ready made. The information of books is no longer necessary; and all knowledge which is not innate, is in contempt, or neglect at least. Every folly must run its round ; and so, I suppose, must that of self-learning and self-sufficiency; of rejecting the knowledge acquired in past ages, and starting on the new ground of intuition. When sobered by experience, I hope our successors will turn their attention to the advantages of education.”

    Sounds like me to my kids — without the eloquence, of course.

  79. Mike Appleton:

    And I was just about to hit it for the night.

    But alas, regarding your last post:

    “Perhaps I don’t understand your criticism. My points were intended to be understood within the context of legal contests.”

    Actually Mike, you sketched out a universal maxim by which the most closed minded could thrive. Consider the vigilante– who ‘knows’ who the guilty are. Thing is, you expressed it so eloquently that envisioning Catholic Church using the same ‘reasoning’ to condemn Gallileo wasn’t much of a stretch.

    “If the date or location of my birth are in dispute, all I need to do is place into evidence the certificate of my birth issued by the government agency responsible for maintaining those records. Under both federal and state rules of evidence, that document constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents.”

    Okay, as you know the legal analysis at this point comes down to the verification of the document. Again, while I’m not intimately familiar with the facts of this case, at this juncture we’re faced with the Best Evidence rule; which, from what I hear, is implicitly raised by those asking for ‘the papers.’ And unless Hawaii’s department of vital statistics was burned by a volcanic eruption, etc., then I don’t think we even need to venture into the ancient document rule. (It’s 30 years on New York; don’t know what it is in Hawaii)

    “The burden then shifts to my opponent.”

    Upon following the steps stated above.

    “The individuals and groups who have been filing lawsuits do not wish to be bothered by such details.” In my opinion, the reason for that is that they are not concerned with either evidence or the rule of law. They are concerned, however, with the fact that someone they despise (for reasons known only to themselves) has been elected to the presidency. They will not be satisfied with any degree of proof.”

    And all I’ve been saying, explicitly and implicitly as someone completely new to this argument, is that if the foregoing steps for establishing the authenticity of a document have been dismissed by the proponent, then, as you’re well aware, the burdens or persuasion and production fail to shift to the opponents. Accordingly, when I hear the opponents claim that the burdens have not been shifted and the only response I hear from the proponents equates to “well, whatever we gave you was good enough, so deal with it,” I’m not hearing a legal argument.

    “Second, the analogy to the trial of Galileo is not well taken.”

    The analogy was strictly in terms of adopting universal maxims, or templates or structure you might say, for framing an argument. Your maxim, while eloquent, was rife with informal fallacy bolstering outcome determinism. The particular facts within the argument are irrelevant.

    Consider Dred Scott; was Justice Tanney argument based in outcome determinism? Was he more concerned with attempting to prevent a civil war or reaching the merits of the case?

    “Galileo’s evidence for his beliefs was not relevant to the crimes with which he was charged.”

    And you don’t think that had anything to do with outcome determinism?

    Furthermore Mike, your exposure to the Jesuits has no relevance to an analysis of the structure of argumentation you presented; no more than yours or my exposure to astronomy has to an analysis of the structure of the following argument:

    All celestial bodies are made of green cheese

    The moon is a celestial body

    Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.

    Deductively, the argument is completely sound. However, the inclusion of a counter-factual premise, i.e by leaving it unexamined because ‘you just KNOW it’s true,’ leads to the faulty conclusion.

    Finally Mike, as we reflect on the process argumentation, let’s not forget that old legal maxim: “law is not a search for truth, but for process.”

    Stay in your own movie,

    Bob

    “And that’s all I’ve got to say about that” — Forest Gump

  80. “A Gift for Bob” – Act III, Sc. 4

    NARRATOR is driving across the desert at night.

    (sound of radio static)

    Rush (VO): What I want to know is why when you take more than ten oxy’s, you get bound . . .

    (sound of radio static)

    The Cramps – Garbage Man

    LOUD CAR GUY: Sunday through Saturday only! We’ll say whatever it takes to lower our inventory!

    (sound of radio static)

    Rush (VO): And I mean like concrete! So there I was, stuck in the same spot! Just like the concrete between these unpatriotic Democrat Party pork enabling tax and spend terrorist enabling loser . . .

    (sound of radio static)

    NARRATOR: By the Insanity Inducing Gaze of Cthulu!!! Is there no escaping that vile little man!

    AAR (VO): Coming up next on Air America . . .

    (sound of radio static)

    Mozart’s Adagio in B minor K540

    (station fades)

    NARRATOR: Doh!

    (sound of radio static)

    Sean (VO): That liberal fascist . . .

    (sound of radio clicking off)

    (sound of digging through a console)

    NARRAROR: Damn it!

    (sound of radio clicking on)

    (sound of radio static)

    Howard (VO): Stripper’s dig me so much! So when the satellite money went away and . . .

    (sound of radio static)

    last measure of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9, Presto Allegro

    JEAN (VO): Beethoven concludes our time hear tonight on Classical Corner. Please join us next time when it’s lyrical piano time at the Corner with an evening of George Gershwin. Next up on NPR, it’s good food on Good Times. The ladies guest tonight is renowned local candy maker, Keith Schwetty.

    (sound of radio static)

    TED (VO): . . . and it looks like we’ve got a pitch hitter here at the bottom of the ninth, tie game, runner on base. Up at the plate, Bob, Esq., better known by his minor league nick name bobfrog.

    HARRY (VO): They call him that because he jumps right to it at the plate! I hear much like his swampy brethren his butt doesn’t hit the ground when he jumps! Yah know they say he’s the pride of his hometown!

    TED (VO): That they do and rightly so. He surely has been a leader on this team all the way to this championship game. Devastating at the plate and his skills in the outfield are poetry in motion. And what a game it’s been, Harry! One for the record books!

    HARRY (VO): I, I, I think he’s got a great chance at MVP. Yah know, back in the day . . eh whuz zat’ he’s doin? Is he pointing toward the outfield?

    TED (VO): I don’t believe it! This guy’s been hitting a ton all season and then he has the chutzpah to pull one from the Bambino’s play book!

    (sound of crowd)

    TED (VO): Appleton’s on the mound. He doesn’t look nervous despite the pressure.

    HARRY (V0): That kid’s got ice in his veins!

    TED (VO): And a rocket launcher on his shoulder! No matter who wins here, this guys also a credit to any team lucky enough to have him. Strong pitching arm and no slouch at the plate himself. He’s eyeballing the runner. He’s staying on base. Back to bobfrog at the plate. He’s waving mespo off. Mespo, no stranger to the big game. Here’s the pitch . . .

    (crack!)

    (sound of crowd going berserk)

    HARRY (VO): And it’s out! of! the! PAAAARRRRKKK! CUBS WIN!

    NARRATOR: Now that was worth turning the radio back on!
    _____

    P.S. Blessed are the insomniacs for we shall inherit the Earth. You hear that the meek?

  81. If you go to the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., you will believe that Jefferson wrote:, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” That is true, but it is not all that he wrote,

    You will not read the very next sentence that he wrote: “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.”

    His policy: “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers.”

    Feb. 8, 1821, full paragraph:

    “The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.”

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Jefferson_negroes.htm

  82. Publius:

    It may well be cherry-picked words on the Jefferson Memorial — a monument Jefferson had no part in designing or creating. But it is equally true that you have cherry-picked Jefferson’s words as he struggled with the great moral issue of his time. The record clearly shows this to be true. That fundamental principle of persuasive advocacy is to be fair, and acknowledge contrary evidence. In this regard you fail, not Jefferson.

  83. Dry up, mespo, the quotation was printed in full. Nothing was cherry picked. No one needs sanctimonious lectures from you. This is contrary evidence never acknowledged by the Jefferson supporters.

    Feel free to add anything you want to the quotation. The bookshelves are groaning with paeans of praise for him.

    This is an educational process. Several posters here have learned for the first time that TJ did not free all his slaves at his death. They have looked up the facts themselves. Good.

    Others think he never mistreated his slaves, but we now know from his own words that he had one flogged. TJ resented a slave for stealing nails, after he had stolen the life of his slave, the life of his father, and the life of his entire family.

    Just what is your problem with historical fact? These are the facts. Get over it.

    Here are some more words that ought to be inscribed on a monument on the Mall to Jame Hubbard, a man who truly struggled with the great moral issue of his time. Jefferson wrote “I had him severely flogged in the presence of his old companions.” The historical record shows that Hubbard eventually escaped and was not recovered. Just how is this cherry picking? What part did this play in Jefferson’s struggle with the great moral issue of his time?

    How about some praise for the Americans who never had the occasion to order a man flogged.

    Again, I hope this has been educational, that some posters have learned something new, and that it leads them to further study.

    Thomas Jefferson to Reuben Perry

    Monticello, April 16. [18]12.

    Having received information in March that Jame Hubbard had been living in Lexington upwards of a twelvemonth, I engaged a man…to go after him. he got there five days after Hubbard had run off from there having committed a theft. he returned of course without him. I engaged him to start a second time, offering a premium of 25. D. in addition to yours, besides his expences. he…persued him into Pendleton county, where he took him and brought him here in irons. I had him severely flogged in the presence of his old companions, and committed to jail where he now awaits your arrival. the course he has been in, and all circumstance convince me he will never again serve any man as a slave. the moment he is out of jail and his irons off he will be off himself it will be therefore unquestionably best for you to sell him…(Farm Book, 34-35).

    http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/earlyrepublic/fehn.html

  84. Publius:

    “Just what is your problem with historical fact? These are the facts. Get over it.”

    **************

    My problem is I wish to consider all the facts and words not just the ones that support my position. And quoting one full passage to the exclusion of the mountain of contrary passages found elsewhere is hardly fairness. You suffer the same problem as most haters–an absolute refusal to see the other side of the case. Hate for an acknowledged great man of our republic will not diminish his standing, nor raise yours.

  85. There is no hatred here. I have even pointed out his values in drafting the Declaration.

    Feel free to add any other facts you want to the flogging of an American man who sought his freedom.

    I note that your essay at 8:39 pm did not mention his position on mandatory deportation, nor his flogging of a escapee. So I have a right to balance you presentation.

    This is just an effort to show the posters the other side of the case.

  86. Publius:

    how old are you? I am not asking to be condescending.

    I think slavery was a moral stain on our country and I also think blacks were treated horribly, I personally am ashamed (and I am not a liberal) as a white man about how blacks were treated only 30 or 40 years ago in this country it was appalling. And I have had a taste of it as a person who uses a wheelchair, I have been turned down for work because I cannot walk and it pissed me off. But I dont dwell on it and most people white and black are very kind to me. In fact I would have to say blacks are more helpful than whites.

    If you work hard and conduct yourself properly I have found that most people dont care if I use a wheelchair or not. I dont whine or cry why me, it is what it is. I make the most of it, and I can tell you when I go to a marketing meeting I dont need to wear a red tie for someone to remember me.

    So I would say if you are black quit listening to Minister Farakhan and start reading Thomas Sowell and working hard, you will be amazed at what happens. Granted there are some people that are bigots, but to judge a man because of small differences in DNA is the mark of a very small and timid mind and if you cant deal with that type of person then your mind is smaller and more timid.

    Another thing older people like to help younger people along, when I was younger I had help from whites, blacks, hindus and one of my favorite people is an old builder from India a truly great man who walks the walk.

    Education is nearly free in this country and if you are a black guy you can get 8a status with the government and get preferential treatment on government contracts. Basically if you are black and young enough to start a business you got the world by the short and curlys. And I can tell you from experience that most people in America, when it comes right down to it do care about color but it isnt black or white its green as in money.

  87. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

    And my personal favorite,

    “A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.”

    Do I really have to tell anyone who that speaker is?

  88. T.Jefferson,
    For a dumb, hit and run troll you sure sparked a debate.

    To All the Usual Suspects,
    Thank you for the erudite discussion. I’ve learned much about Jefferson, on both sides, that I didn’t know. My take on him is like my take on all “Great” Men. Every human being has feet of clay. Like the quote presented from Jefferson by CCD regarding “self interest,” we sometimes cross our own moral lines. Rabbi Hillel was responsible for both the following quotes that highlight the issues:

    “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”

    “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

    That sums up for me my entire philosophy of life, dealing with people and spirituality. Yet, as you have seen in some of my comments, I often miss the mark. I aspire to lofty ideals, but there have been many times in my life when I haven’t acted as the person I’ve aspired to be. This is true for all of us. Humans often reach a pinnacle of greatness in their actions, but none of us sustains it throughout their lives. Can we expect more of the “great” who have acted heroically, or advanced humanity? I admire and respect Ghandi, MLK and Clarence Darrow. All three of them though had unsavory aspects to their lives.

    Since the race issue has been implicit to this discussion I’d like to give you my take as a blue-eyed, formery blond Jew.
    America was and still is a predominantly racist country as measured by its views of people of color % ethnicity and its’ governments’ treatment of them. Nevertheless, each individual who suffers that bigotry must as an individual strive as if it did not exist, or fall victim to it. That’s what Barack and Michelle Obama did. His election though was more about the quality of the man and his message, than it was an acknowledgment of America’s diminished bigotry.

    What a heavy burden it is to bear for the individual person of color, sex, sexuality and ethnicity. It means that they have to work harder than others more fortunately positioned. The fact of this is a lesson yet to be learned by many American’s who would deny the truth of this.

    Jefferson was indeed a man of his time and to me that cuts him some slack. There is evidence though that he knew better than what was the common consensus of his day. In this sense he failed to live up to his ideals and was a hypocrite. That still doesn’t diminish the good that he did, merely balances out the picture of the total man as not a “superhero,” but as a human being that on balance distinguished himself.

  89. Publius:

    “I note that your essay at 8:39 pm did not mention his position on mandatory deportation, nor his flogging of a escapee. So I have a right to balance you presentation.”

    *****************

    I didn’t mention Jefferson’s lisp or his awkward body language either. Nor did I dispute your assertions about these matters. Qui tacet consentit.

    Churchill ordered the fire bombing of Dresden after the War was essentially won. Would you dispute his stature too for an act that makes Jefferson’s appear to be a slap on the wrist?

  90. Mespo:

    I assumed you knew that Churchill had an abiding hatred for all things German and used the war as an excuse to commit genocide.

    You can see it in his writings, he just dosent know what to make of the Hun.

  91. bron98:

    “I assumed you knew that Churchill had an abiding hatred for all things German and used the war as an excuse to commit genocide.”

    **********

    Not to. The great Prime Minster clearly said:

    “I hate nobody except Hitler — and that is professional.”

    –Churchill to John Colville during WWII, quoted by Colville in his book The Churchillians (1981)

  92. Mespo:

    no worries kind of hard not to since my rapier wit is known only but to me.

    Did I show Publius’s absurdity or just my own?

  93. To Mr. Spindell and all of the others that have tried to malign this case in ways other than the facts:

    I have been following this case for a while. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, believe what you will. I am just here to present the facts of the case to you.

    First off, if a birth certificate were to surface from Kenya, where [what you would call] the “kooky” plaintiffs allege, would you believe it? Why or why not? The way I see it, a COLB, which is not official, is absolutely no different (more info on this to come in the FACTS section of my post here). In fact, a COLB is a front document for the original. So there would be every reason to believe that it may be forged in the same manner that (if you already have made up your mind about things) a Kenyan BC would be forged. Ok? Please follow with me for a bit.

    What do we KNOW? Obama has an original birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. Dr. Fukino said this AND “it is in accordance with state policies and procedures” on Oct. 31 2008. That’s it.

    What is one of Hawaii’s state policies and procedures? None other than statute 338.17, which you can view right here:

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

    So it is appears to be possible and certainly a tradition of Hawaii’s, to give original birth certificates to people NOT born in their state. If you think this is crazy, I have an example of someone that in fact has gotten a BC not being born in HI. Sun Yat-Sen, a revolutionary born in China, received an original from the state of Hawaii. Look him up.

    Now, given this information, how is it that a “reasonable” person would be pleased by just a COLB? This man is running, and already is, President of the United States. Yet given the above and much more skepticism of his history, including a non American father and world travels over much of his life, it is unreasonable to conclude that this is possible?

    Since he won’t offer up his original, which Fukino says exists, it seems to me it is unreasonable to think he is acting in any way reasonable to trust, hope, change, etc. what he has paraded as his true priorities. He is currently the most powerful man in the world! Yet, he’s hiding nothing, except his real birth certificate, that which is required by the Constitution to be President.

    No one to this day has given me one good reason why he shouldn’t show. There’s no real privacy issue. All that is on said document is length, weight, birth, medical center, OB, etc. Not showing anything, given every other president in recent history has in fact done these things, is unreasonable.

    McCain, Bush, Clinton … these men showed their college records, birth certificates. There is NOT ONE record of Barack Obama’s that is not sealed — you name it: medical, college, birth certificate.

    The fact is that no one checks the qualifications of candidates. I have done extensive research. The FBI denies vetting anyone. The Libertarian Party said no one ever asked about Bob Barr.

    The senate voted 19-0 that McCain was qualified. They never even asked if Obama was qualified, and his detail are far sketchier. Why? Everything is sealed, and people were scared of the repercussions, political and image-wise, to confront something they realized would REALLY be sacrificial and cause a tremendous amount of energy and fight.

    Everything I have said here is verifiable. Check it all. These are the FACTS. Here’s my opinion:

    The president by not showing is tacitly showing himself to be a fraud. There is no other explanation. Examine the facts. This is not personal, it is indeed about defending the Constitution. Period.

  94. Shadow,

    What an appropriate nick for someone without substance. There is no need to take your nonsense to task. Quantity of words do make the quality of the words.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/#comment-41407

    Read Vince Treacy’s posts. There is an example of quality work – the highest quality. Quality analysis is like a flashlight. It may create a shadow, but under direct focus, it can kill a shadow too. Lamont Cranston wouldn’t be pleased by a weak impostor’s effort to hide agenda and vendetta behind verbiage.

    Obama is the President and he is with considerably more authority than Bush was since he was actually elected and not appointed. The continued attack of the trollish against his citizenship doesn’t smell of righteousness, but reeks instead of desperation and fear. There are plenty of issues to take him to task over, but this isn’t one of them unless you just like being wrong.

    Period.

  95. What’s the first hint someone has no true basis? Ad hominem attack. Precisely what Buddha is Laughing did here.

    Then we get something that wreeks of partisanship: A Bush appeal and addressing of entirely a different argument. Another distractor. This isn’t about anybody but Obama. So, please point out anything unfactual that I have stated, or quit wasting everyone’s time here.

    This is for intelligent thought, and if you disagree, please point it out. Otherwise, understand that everything I have said is factual and verifiable. So let’s move on to productive discourse, not slander.

  96. Shadow,

    I pointed you to all the answer you deserve.

    And don’t try to dictate my behavior. That usually backfires.

  97. You’re a higher quality troll, I’ll stipulate that, but you’re still a troll. It was denied cert. Take it up the the Supremes since you seem so complacent to let them APPOINT a President who suits your agenda.

  98. Vince Treacy did not post quality work from what I just read over at your link.

    My statements are all in the light, Buddha. I put them out there to be tested. The truthful basis for what I have posted can be checked, that is put up to light; test what I have brought up.

    A relative of mine brought an ID to the DMV at the state of California. He desired to get a drivers license there. Guess what they told him? UNLESS YOU BRING your original birth certificate, you get no drivers license.

    So let me get this straight — my no-name cousin is held to a higher standard than the President of the United States?

    If he is truly born in the United States, then he has nothing to lose by showing his original birth certificate. But Buddha, he won’t do it. Nor will he release ANY college record, health record, or law record.

    I think it is Obama who is unreasonable. He is a “servant of the people” yet he will not allow for what you call “direct focus”, now will he?

    You just betrayed yourself by your own words. Direct focus exposes the President because he knows why he won’t show. You are angry at me for pointing this out. Curious that you betray yourself twice in this manner.

  99. Everyone reading this of fine conscience and regardless of what side you see in this manner, or are trying to wade through the multiplicity of words — please consider what “Buddha is Laughing” is doing.

    Again, he calls me a troll. So that makes 3 posts where he refuses to address the facts that I present.

    It’s somewhat sad that in this day and age people resort to personal attacks when they have no real argument.

    Again, point out what I have said that is untrue. Your inability to do so betrays you … a third time. Wanna go for 4?

  100. Well, just because you’re incapable of recognizing bullshit from shinola, sport, that’d be your problem.

    And I’m not angry at all. I think you’re a fool toting a propaganda line. Why would your failing make me angry? Duh.

    As far as reasonable goes and your assessment of it, well, one has to be reasonable to define it. Your unreasonable refusal to accept that this point has been resolved and not in your favor is the only unreasonableness going on here.

  101. And further more,

    blah blah blah,

    Vince already trashed anything you have to say. So go on, escalate an attack on me. That has historically worked so well for your lot.

  102. Hawaii does in fact have a law authorizing issuance of birth certificates for children born out of state, if the parents show they were legal residentt of Hawaii. But it did not issue such a form for Obama.

    Obama’s form expressly shows that his place of birth is Hawaii. So it is not a certificate for someone born elsewhere. It does not show a birth elsewhere. Such a form might enable the holder to get a driver’s license in Hawaii and a passport from the State Department. It would not show that the place of birth was in Hawaii, because that would be a fraud on a public document, and no state allows that. (This stutute was enacted long after the Sun forgery, and had nothing to do with that incident).

    Hawaii did not issue such a certificate of out of state birth for Obama. It issued a certificate showing that he was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. It is signed by a state official. It has a raised seal. It is authentic, not a forgery. It confirms a contempory newspaper annoucement of his birth in Hawaii.

    Obama was born in the State of Hawaii of the United States, is a natural born citzen of the United States, and is the President of the United States.

  103. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Shadow,
    since peculiarly you seem to have drawn my name out of the hat I feel I must respond.

    First, my guess is that the reason you picked me out to respond to is because you’re probably T.Jefferson under another, and as Buddha pointed out more apt pseudonym. I was deservedly harsh with the Jeffyboy persona and your tiny ego, damaged as it is, picked me out to vent on.

    Second, It would have been helpful coming so late to this thread if you had actually read the totality of the arguments and the link above provided by Vince. Then perhaps you might have actually responded to the points made by many.

    “I am just here to present the facts of the case to you.
    First off, if a birth certificate were to surface from Kenya, where [what you would call] the “kooky” plaintiffs allege, would you believe it?”

    Third, while you present yourself as presenting facts your first point is a supposition and not a fact. Have YOU seen a Kenyan Birth Certificate? If this is your facts, then you are involved in something less than logical argument.

    “What do we KNOW? Obama has an original birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. Dr. Fukino said this AND “it is in accordance with state policies and procedures” on Oct. 31 2008. That’s it.What is one of Hawaii’s state policies and procedures? None other than statute 338.17, which you can view right here:”

    This is also not a fact. Yes I’ve read the statute you present as a smoking gun, but so what? What evidence do you have to show that his birth was out of State?

    “Since he won’t offer up his original, which Fukino says exists, it seems to me it is unreasonable to think he is acting in any way reasonable to trust, hope, change, etc. what he has paraded as his true priorities.”

    If you follow the link you set and hit the arrow for the next statute which is one on confidentiality it explains Hawaiian law on keeping these records confidential and defines who the part of interest might be that has the right to see them. You and Jeffy don’t qualify and since the SCOTUS has already seen no merit to the claim there is no reason for Obama to try to give you all more. There is actually plenty of reason for him not to. This whole charade is typical of the crap they put Bill Clinton through from his first day in office and every time he complied, people like you only kept on going anyway. These charges should not be dignified because although you stat otherwis you have no facts and from the evidence little ability to reason.
    You and Jeffy

  104. Anyone looking for “facts” can link to these sites, all independent of the Obama campaign:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp and

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

    A writer at Salon.com said the conspiracy would never die:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

    And it won’t. Even if they finally accept that he was born in Hawaii, they will fall back to Donofrio’s argument that he is not natural born because his father was Kenyan. This is also false, and has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, but it is still out there.

  105. Michael,

    I am not a former poster, this is the first time I’ve been to this site.

    I also have an open mind. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I have followed the facts of the case. So for starters,

    Please state one good reason for Obama not to show his birth certificate. Obviously there is a little bit of doubt, at worst. Why should he deal with this and not just show? In my view he has nothing to lose and everything to gain IF what he states is true. So please give me the one good reason.

    To prove to you that I have an open mind, Mr. Spindell or Mr. Treacy, please point me to a COLB or other such document similar that would be used for out of state people who get original birth certificates.

    Furthermore, just understand where I am coming from. I am not your adversary. I want to find out the truth and I can’t find one good reason why he wouldn’t show the original, there is nothing to lose by doing it, unless you have something to lose. This is SUPER suspicious.

    It is incorrect that SCOTUS has said cases have no merit. They have said no one has “standing” — far different. If you are too lazy to look that up, I’ll tell you right now: it means they will only CHECK the MERITS if the person has standing first. So no, the merits of any case have not been determined.

    Did Fukino talk about the COLB? I don’t believe she did. There’s no good reason to believe that it is even real. No health official nor Fukino made any statement regarding that document. If they did, point me to it.

    Also, McCain released his birth certificate so EVERYONE could see it. Another place where Obama just either doesn’t do it the right way, or he’s hiding something — some website group sees the document, supposedly? He’s not even forthcoming about the NON-ORIGINAL!

    He hasn’t spoken one word about this case. There are too many shady things not to be suspicious. And all he needs to do is show the original and I’ll shut up!

    But he won’t and you are making excuses for him, none of which are good. I think it’s highly likely he won’t show because … haha we both know.

  106. I have a COLB. It’s from the State of Louisiana. I have a copy of the original as filed and I have the a new one issued by the state only a few years ago. But I do not and cannot have the original as it was destroyed in a fire. However, these alternate papers provided by the state are adequate identification in a court of law. Even the rule of evidence accept substitute documents like my own in lieu of an unobtainable original. It’s called “best evidence” for a reason. That, however, is not the case for Obama. His documentation is of better quality than mine. His COLB, as Vince again pointed out, was documented in the legal manner required when he was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. It is signed by a state official and all relevant parties. It has no formal deficiencies. There is no chain of custody issue caused by fire or other supervening factor. It has a raised seal. It is authentic, not a forgery.

    So you have the best evidence provided to the SCOTUS in consideration of the application for a writ of certiorari. The evidence provided has 1) valid and seal certified state produced documents proving he was born in Hawaii compounded by 2) ancillary non-governmental contemporaneous documentation in the form of the publicly published birth announcement. A contemporaneous notation that indeed confirms the OFFICIAL state documentation. But you INSIST on the ORIGINAL. “I want my chocolate milk and I want it NOW, Mommy!”

    Your insistence upon an original is childish and petty in addition to being evidentiary nonsense. What he has is accepted by law of being the equivalent of the original without question. If that’s a problem for you, again, take it up with the Supremes or build a time machine. They denied cert for a reason and that reason is this dog don’t hunt. It’s a total non-starter. You’re only proving the case that your agenda and the answer you desire is what you will work toward despite evidence of your stance’s futility.

    But you keep on with that wishful thinking and attempts at revisionism. That’s why We the People HAVE Rules of Evidence – to limit abuses by those who would seek to reshape reality with distortion or lies by providing the best quality evidence to the court as possible. It’s what Neocon trolls do best – distortion and lies to further their fascist agenda. And don’t even try to deny your partisan status, Shady. You’re not that good a writer. Your mission stands out like a turd in a punch bowl just like your petulant and pedantic illogic.

  107. Shadow,

    If you read what I previously wrote above, you will see that I do not understand why Mr. Obama will not show his birth certificate. He micromanages, gives opinions on relatively minor issues, and speaks on every topic from Rush Limbaugh to many current events. That dichotomy alone raises some minor suspicions for me.

    I voted from Mr. O. although the last item I was holding out for before my vote was the birth certificate issue. Mr. O pledged that he would be open and transparent and I think that he is somewhat hypocritical for not quashing this controversy.

    If nothing else, I would prefer that Obama came completely clean if only to quieten people like you.

  108. You can call me a troll or a partisan all you want, but that still won’t alter the questions I have or the answers you give, which may or may not be reasonable or sufficient.

    If I WERE partisan, why would I want Obama out? To get Biden or Pelosi? Ha! That’s insane. So that’s obviously not a good reason, even if we were to entertain it.

    You said, “2) ancillary non-governmental contemporaneous documentation in the form of the publicly published birth announcement. A contemporaneous notation that indeed confirms the OFFICIAL state documentation. But you INSIST on the ORIGINAL.”

    First of all, if there is no doubt that the COLB is legit, then why has it been hidden from all people for the longest time, and only factcheck.org is allowed to see it? If they were worried about someone creating the idea that it was forged, they should have done it the right way, not withheld it for a long time, then ONLY show it to a WEBSITE that presumably stands for truth. That’s really good to quell any objections, good job, Obama group — they set themselves up by handling it poorly — or they don’t want people really to see it. Either way, they’ve chosen the shady route to go. Another time. How interesting.

    As for the foolishness of your “ancillary documentation contemperanous documentation” quote — your eloquent words aren’t going to fool anyone.

    Any straight thinker immediate realizes that, the birth announcement is insignificant. Why? It is done 9 days after the birth, first. Ok. Consider the only two options. A) Barack was born in the Hawaii. SA Dunham puts a notice in the paper. OR B) Barack is not born in Hawaii. Are you telling me one wouldn’t make an announcement, regardless? It’s not like it says what med center the boy was born at … I’ve seen the newspapers on microfiche. It says “Barack Sr. and SA Dunham had a boy”. If you just think about it, in EITHER situation the same thing would be done. In fact, it would be done more importantly in option B! precisely because a birth cert would have to be applied for and given under 338.17 and they knew it.

    Done and done. If people think, then they don’t have to waste our time. Luckily, I do think.

    Even if you don’t agree, you still wasted our time because you believed that this example meant something. Obviously, as I’ve just pointed out, it doesn’t.

    Perhaps another non partisan thinker, someone other than Buddha, can chime in:

    Let’s say I didn’t even have the evidence I do, which PROVES it is possible to get an original certificate of live birth from HI without being born there.

    Even in that case, what’s so wrong with insisting that he show an original.

    He’s PRESIDENT AND HE HAS ONE. But he won’t show. End of story.

    Once again, no one can give me one good reason for him not to show the original. Why?

    THERE ISN’T ONE.

  109. Everyone,

    During the campaign, Obama was asked for a birth certificate.

    He asked Hawaii and they produced it in accordance with state law. It has been posted on the net ever since.

    Dr. Fukino and Mr. Anaka have both stated they examined the original. The certificate is authentic.

    This was not enough. The opponents then said it was forged. This has been refuted by independent examiners.

    So the doubters ask us to assume the state officials risked their careers and criminal punishment by looking at documents showing Obama born in a foreign country, and then falsely issuing the certificate showing US birth, knowing that the original can be checked at any time. Not likely.

    No matter what the Obama camp has done, the doubters will want more. Well, they have convinced me.

    Shadow also asked:

    “To prove to you that I have an open mind, Mr. Spindell or Mr. Treacy, please point me to a COLB or other such document similar that would be used for out of state people who get original birth certificates.”

    Since you asked me by name, this question is unclear. I can’t tell what you want to know. The law I looked at says the state can issue a Hawaii birth certificate to children born out of state. That is all. It does not say they can issue a certificate saying that an out of state was born in Hawaii, does it? Are you saying the state can legally issue such a certificate to a child born overseas, but state falsely that the child was born in the US? I do not think they can do that.

    Also, this is a legal site. We followed the Supreme Court decisions here. They were dismissed without comment. They said nothing about standing. Some of the lower courts discussed that issue. The Court looked at the cases in conference. I think they dismissed because there was no merit to the cases even if standing had been present.

    Finally, this is developing a life of its own. It is at the point where no evidence will ever convince the faithful.

    I firmly predict that even after the original or vault or whatever copy it is that they want is made public, the doubters will still raise new doubts, charge new forgeries, float more ill-founded legal theories, on to infinity. Since Mike and I post under our names, you can come back and look it up, Shadow.

    Meanwhile, there is the global economy, the mideast peace process, the wars … .

    “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts…”

  110. I don’t have to speak to his motivation. It’s irrelevant. Personally if I’d met the standards sufficient to merit the Supremes not granting cert, I wouldn’t show the original just out of spite since you insist on acting like a child about it. As for the original, as FFLEO said, he should produce an original if available just to silence tools like yourself, but barring that all legal and evidentiary thresholds have been met according to the Supremes. None of this changes that your argument is based in a childish denial of the SCOTUS and their decision that the question you hinge your rants upon is insufficient to merit granting cert. But you go ahead and whine some more. You don’t like the Rules of Evidence, try to get them outlawed or amended so that YOU and ONLY YOU gets to decide what is valid evidence. That is the only thing that would salve your festering wound. Good luck with that, ego-boy. You’re only proving your partisanship and illustrating that you have no concern about evidence, only outcome. But please, keep foaming at the mouth. It’s funny and there’s nothing but crap on TV tonight, Tommy, er, Lamont.

  111. Mr. Treacy, thank you for answering me civilly.

    Mr. Buddha is Laughing, please refrain from replying to me or answering at this point, because all you do is call people names. Not only me now but Leo, who you described as a “tool” in the previous post. So please stop. Thank you.

    Mr. Treacy, allow me to address your points:

    1)
    You are reporting things that you aren’t verifying due to the fact that they can’t be verified. Officially, Fukino has only said this, and I quote:

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    AND

    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

    If you can find another official statement to substantiate your points, please post. But I’m quite sure you can’t, because I’ve searched everything they have gone on record as saying.

    2)
    One of the major reasons that skeptics have said that it was forged was because the first document released on Obama’s OWN WEBSITE DIFFERS FROM the image released by Factcheck.org later on.

    I have seen both documents and they are in fact, different. Can you explain this?

    You don’t seem to be able to explain or point me to any document that actually exists that says that someone is born out of country. The claim is that someone who was definitely born out of the country, Maya, his sister (in Indonesia) —and who has a COLB— is the background of the alleged forgery, testified to by several witnesses.

    I personally am uncertain because I am not an expert. What I have seen is that the documents are different. Also, you state that Fukino and Anaka have said things officially that may implicate them. I’ve told you the ONLY things that they’ve said. If they’ve said other things, present them, let me know.

    But with what they’ve said they are in no trouble, even if Obama’s real original BC says he was born in, let’s say, Kenya.

    Finally, the only reason that it may be “developing a life of its own” is due to the fact that Barry Obama / Soetoro / etc. will not show his original birth certificate.

    If he is legit, he has nothing to hide. However, he wouldn’t have dispatched lawyers at all corners — Occidental, Columbia, Harvard — if he had something to hide. Would he have?

    Finally, and for the record:

    If the original is released and it shows he is born in Hawaii, I will come back to this site [thread] and say I apologize for wasting people’s time.

    I will not apologize for wanting someone who is supposedly “working for me” and my President enough to show me a reasonable Constitutional requirement. There are only 3 qualifications. And he is not honest enough to show what every other president in modern history has shown. I’m appalled at his shadiness when he alone can shut it down by offering the original. But then he would be shutting himself down, wouldn’t he? For any reasonable person, it’s the ONLY explanation.

  112. Good luck with telling me what to do, Propaganda Boy.

    You cannot deny this all comes down to you wanting to decide the rules of evidence yourself. Pure and simple. The beauty of it is is that the harder you protest, the more you look like exactly I’m describing – a person who is intent on outcome, not evidence. In short, someone with an agenda – a propagandist.

    You keep foaming. I’ll keep laughing. And that’d be at you in case you missed that part.

  113. You can’t answer the simplest of questions, Buddha and until you answer, you look like the retard that you are in provoking people:

    If he is born here, why not show?

    You still can’t answer. NEXT

  114. Hey Buddha, thanks for calling me a tool! At least, I prefer the analogy of a torque wrench though.

    Shadow, I think that you misread what Buddha said:

    “As for the original, as FFLEO said, he should produce an original if available just to silence tools like yourself…”

  115. FFLEO,

    Clearly you see the implication that your statement had utility. :D But you are mixing classes of tools for certain. A torque wrench is a high utility tool as opposed to a propaganda wrench – a completely useless tool that combines a monkey wrench, a foam extruder and a sabat. And “why not” is indeed a valid question, however, to raise it beyond the academic exercise of asking it – especially going to great ends to do so in light of more than legally sufficient evidence – doesn’t pass the smell test. No slight to you was intended, my torque-ish friend.

  116. “The Irish are a fair people- they never speak well of one another”

    Samuel Johnson didn’t know what he was talking about.

  117. Shadow:

    “Once again, no one can give me one good reason for him not to show the original. Why?”

    **************

    I guess because he doesn’t have to answer to you or the flock of loons promulgating this ridiculous story. He answers to all of us every 4 years, and if you care to discuss it then, go right ahead. Until then, either stop the verbal madness, or file your frivolous lawsuit. Funny you were not so Constitutionally sensitive when Bush was trashing it for real, and in full view of us all.

  118. Shadow, the official in Hawaii has said that he has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” Read these words. He has personally seen the original. He has issued a certificate based on it. The issued certificate says that the place of birth was Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. That is how an official says it and does it. That is how it is said legally. That is the evidence.

    Now the alternative theory must be that he looked at the original, found that it said Obama was born in Kenya or somewhere else, and then issued a false certificate. Well, that is not impossible, since nearly nothing is impossible, but there is NO evidence to support that it did happen, and enormous evidence that it did not happen.

    Please be aware of the vast number of bloggers who say that Obama is not natural born because he did not have two US citizen parents, and say he cannot be President even if he was born in Hawaii. Another bunch said originally that the certificate was a forgery. With no proof of that theory, they fell back on the official misconduct theory. That is why I suspected that they would charge that the “original” was also faked. Or they will argue that the official altered the original to match the certificate, and challenge that. And on and on.

    There are no material differences between the posted certificates. The minor differences have been explained. One has a serial number blocked out, because they thought that was legally required, but that is not a material difference, and the serial number has been shown. The Certificate Number is 151-1961-010641. ALL copies show birth in Hawaii. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

    Everyone can see where this is going. No one can ever prove a negative. No one can ever prove that something was NOT faked.

    You earlier said Hawaii could issue a certificate for a child born elsewhere. I do not see how the Obama Certificate could have been a birth certificate for a child born out of state under the law you linked to. I do not read the language of that law to authorize fictitious certificates. Here is the law for everyone to read:

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

  119. “Michael,
    I am not a former poster, this is the first time I’ve been to this site.I also have an open mind. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I have followed the facts of the case. So for starters, Please state one good reason for Obama not to show his birth certificate. Obviously there is a little bit of doubt, at worst.”

    Shady,

    Vince Treacy has demolished every argument you’ve put forth and you’ve responded to him not with refutation/facts, but with further suppositions. Now you seem too intelligent not to know the difference between facts and supposition but you continue to blur the distinction, which is why most of us have you pegged as a partisan troll. In the interests of fairness though, I will try to answer your question above, even though Vince has already done it.

    Obama has done more than enough to satisfy the legal requirements of the Constitution, as Vince and others have detailed. For him to further comply would only lend credence to the anti-Obama partisans position and not stifle debate because they would then parse the COLB. This is a technique that was successfully used against Bill Clinton, before Monica came on the scene. The process was to de-legitimize his Presidency from the beginning thus putting his administration on the defensive. Obama is aware of this and he won’t play in your guys playground. Incidentally, the technique being used was developed by a man named Goebbels in the 1920’s. He called it “The Big Lie” and it was his correct theory that if you repeat a lie often enough it gains credence.

    “Furthermore, just understand where I am coming from. I am not your adversary. I want to find out the truth and I can’t find one good reason why he wouldn’t show the original, there is nothing to lose by doing it, unless you have something to lose. This is SUPER suspicious.”

    It is not SUPER suspicious to me since I already pointed out to you in my prior post and above the very good reasons why Obama hasn’t done it. As for your searching for the truth your various comments belie it. I state that because you never refute the answers you were already given, but merely reiterate your suppositions without evidence to back those suppositions up. As I stated before and restated above there is every good reason for him not to respond to this disinformation/delegitimization campaign on the part of partisans who can’t accept they lost the election.

    “It is incorrect that SCOTUS has said cases have no merit. They have said no one has “standing.”

    As was shown by Vince or Buddha, the lower courts were the ones with the “no standing” rulings. SCOTUS refused to hear the case, which would mean it had no probative merit in their opinion.

    “Did Fukino talk about the COLB? I don’t believe she did. There’s no good reason to believe that it is even real. No health official nor Fukino made any statement regarding that document. If they did, point me to it.”

    Vince refuted this and you ignored his refutation.

    “also, McCain released his birth certificate so EVERYONE could see it. Another place where Obama just either doesn’t do it the right way, or he’s hiding something — some website group sees the document, supposedly? He’s not even forthcoming about the NON-ORIGINAL!”

    The McCain reference is a non-sequitur and actually the McCain campaign waffled quite a bit on the birth issue. Is Panama the continental US and if not does being born outside the continental US satisfy the Constitution? to someone like you that might be an interesting question if you didn’t like McCain. As for Obama doing it the right way, he can’t. Not because he hasn’t, which he has, but because partisans and perhaps dupes like you will never accept anything he does as the right way. The rest of your statement was refuted by other but you chose not to respond to that.

    “He hasn’t spoken one word about this case. There are too many shady things not to be suspicious. And all he needs to do is show the original and I’ll shut up!”

    The only shady thing about this is you and your confreres who cant’s get over losing. Don’t play innocent observer with me because I could go through every one of your comments and show you where your partisanship shines through, but frankly that is not worth my time. You are a dishonest debater and you ignore, rather than refute points made against your case.
    That alone identifies you as the type of faux conservative, who spends time listening to Rush & Sean, who follows the Rovian/Norquist/Goebbels propaganda line.

    “If I WERE partisan, why would I want Obama out? To get Biden or Pelosi? Ha! That’s insane. So that’s obviously not a good reason, even if we were to entertain it.”

    Finally, you nail yourself on two points here, are you too dumb to realize it? You would want Obama out because you perceive him as a real threat to all you hold dear and because he is obviously effective in combating your agenda.
    You are also obviously a partisan because thinking a Biden or Pelosi Presidency would be insane indicates your partisanship. One may disagree with their politics, but there is nothing in either history to suggest their unfitness for office, unless of course it was their politics.

    I’m done with you after this though, because you’ve been thoroughly trounced and disposed of, more by others though you chose to confront me Jeffy. You’re just another troll with nothing interesting to say and a debate style taken out of the Rove/Norquist/Goebbels playbook and are either fully in their thrall, or too ignorant to know it. You are being roundly rejected here not for your political views, the spectrum of which I know Professor Turley and the rest of us welcome, but because you are fundamentally dishonest in discourse and are more interested in making vapid points than making sense.

  120. CCD,

    I’m not sure if you know who Edmund Blackadder is, but since you do know Samuel Johnson, a present . . .

    Ink & Incapability (in 3 parts)

    Enjoy!

  121. Michael, please, keep your emotions out of this. Vince did nothing of the sort with regard to “demolishing” any argument.

    Vince just said to me,
    “Personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    ‘Read these words. He has personally seen the original.’

    I have no doubt that there is an original. That’s what we know. He said that they have an original in accordance with state policies. One of those policies is a birth certificate for people not born in the state.

    The OFFICIAL statement NEVER SAID and “I issued a COLB, the one that Obama has shown, based on it.” LOOK AT THE PDF-31 Oct 2008

    “He has issued a certificate based on it.”

    You added this and it is not at all what the official said. YOU SAID IT. If I’m wrong, correct me. But I am not. I have looked at every official statement said by Fukino. You said it, not him, you read into that; you extrapolated something he never said.

    Fukino never commented on any COLB. He only addressed that Obama has an original birth certificate on file. It is possible that one can have an original and be born out of state. Obama won’t show the original. If he showed, I would shut up and walk away. Why are you mad at me?

    For the record, I do not believe that you need two citizen or American parents to be President of the United States. I am not saying nor have I ever said such things. I do defend the Constitutional requirement however that the President must be 35, lived here 14 years, and be born in the United States as a natural born citizen.

    Obama won’t show the original. Why?

    He wouldn’t even open the COLB up to the public. Ha! It’s even sketchier. If worried about conspiracy anyway, just open up the COLB to the people, not to some random website of his choosing. But again he won’t even be truly forthcoming about the COLB.

    Again, Fukino NEVER SAID ANYTHING OFFICIALLY about ANY COLB. For a reason … it’s not her business that someone faked a COLB and only showed it to a random website. She doesn’t care. Her business is telling the truth about having an original. And she did tell the truth. There is one. But it has some other info untoward to Obama.

    All of the preceding elements are FACT.

  122. Buddha,
    I began re-reading Neal Stephenson’s “Baroque Cycle” today. In light of the financial crisis I thought it would be instructive to see how finance began. Anything interesting happening in this thread today? Doesn’t appear to be. Back to my books.

  123. Thank you Mike for the tacit recognition that you cannot and have not been able to counter my points, as much as you make up or read into them.

    I have no problem with you not buying the argument, which is a good one. That’s fine. I don’t expect people who see poltiics as their religion to easily come out from that mindset. I know it is very human for there to be impedance to try to look at things more objectively. I have frailties too and sometimes they get the best of me.

    What I do have a problem with is arguing against something by inventing things. You invented what Fukino said, what SHE NEVER said. And I showed this to you. You have every right to ignore or not believe anything you don’t want to. That’s up to you.

    However, misleading or creating things that aren’t on the record is betraying a true argument. Don’t do it.

    Be honest and admit that Fukino never said anything contrary to anything I have asserted. Also be honest and that the real reason I would ever post on this site is really due to Obama’s arrogance and lack of forthright transparency. It’s on him, not on me. If he releases the real original and you are right, I shut up. But he won’t.

    And we both know why.

  124. my only question as a layman is why does any of this matter, I thought his mother was an American citizen so isnt all of this moot? He could have been born on Mars and wouldnt he still be an American?

    His mother was an American he is an American as far as I am concerned. And Shadow I can tell you I would be very happy if President Obama was just plain Senator Obama but even as partisan as I am dont see a problem.

    Lets just work to get someone else elected in 2012 and spend the energy and money on intelligent opposition instead of tilting at wind mills. This kind of fringe kookery does us no good.

  125. Bron, your type of attitude isn’t surprising. At this point I think may Americans care so little about the Constitution they are willing to let a man who defrauded himself knowingly do whatever he pleases.

    If you let this go, what are you going to do when they take away free speech? Wait for the next guy? I’m willing to say that this may not happen for some time, but things change and happen faster than we think — War, economic collapse, etc.

    Your indifference is your right, but you didn’t write the Constitution. If the only thing that many have given their lives for (our Republic as given by the Constitution) is not respected and is walked upon, there is no rule of law anymore. Anyone can do anything he pleases … and the rate we are going, whoever that may be … WILL.

    You need two citizens as parents to be naturally born if not born in the United States. Barack Obama is a Con law lecturer. He knows very well that he is not a naturally born citizen, which is why he won’t show the original birth certificate.

  126. Shadow said the constitutional requirement is that “the President must be 35, lived here 14 years, and be born in the United States as a natural born citizen.”

    Actually, that is not what it says. It says “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Art II, sec. Cl 5. It does not say born in the United States. The exact words of the Constitution are important.

    Bron, many scholars agree with you that persons born of American citizen parents are natural born citizens regardless of place of birth, but the Supreme Court has not yet ruled. There are long articles on the web. Go to the discussion started on March 29, 2008 on this site, and scroll down to the memo by Tribe and Olson:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/

    Under this reasoning, I concluded that McCain was eligible. I would also agree that Obama would be a natural born citizen because his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth, even if he was born outside the United States (which he was not).

    The First Congress treated foreign born children of Americans at natural born citizens. Shadow says “You need two citizens as parents to be naturally born if not born in the United States,” but that is just his opinion, because there is no such requirement in the Constitution.

    Everyone: Hawaii issued a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB for Obama on June 6, 2007.
    Hawaii uses signature stamps on birth certificates. This one says “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health” and is signed by Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar.

    I hope this clears it up for all of you, if not for shadow. The Hawaii State Registrar of the state’s department of health has certified that the document released by Obama is a “true copy or abstract” of the record on file. The official issued the certification based on the records in the file. I do not know how many other ways I can convey this meaning.

    Finally, Shadow still does not grasp the fact that a birth certificate issued under Hawaii law for a person born outside Hawaii, such as an adopted child, would not show a place of birth in Hawaii.

    I hope this clears up some confusion.

  127. Vince, I know all of the cases. You quoted the Constitution correctly. You then get into diversion. Everyone read what Vince quoted.

    It says that a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the signing (since at that time no one was old enough to be President at the founding of the nation) could be president. The 2nd scenario is now gone, since the signing took place.

    Immigration law at the time of Barack Obama’s birth (Aug 4 1961)was that a child born to only one American parent needed to live in the United States for 5 years past the age of 14 to transmit this status. S.A. Dunham was not 19 when she had Obama, she was 18. This law is the applicable law in this case.

    Let’s forget about an undecided Supreme Court for now — it’s irrelevant because it hasn’t happened yet. McCain under law of his birth was a natural born citizen, according to immigration law. FACT.

    According to immigration law at the time of Obama’s birth, he was not natural born. FACT.

    I’m not going to argue what the Supreme Court may or may not decide in these posts given. That is for another time and another place; it is irrelevant. The precedent at the time is immigration law. I have given you more truthful statements about the two cases, both verifiable. Obviously, those immigration laws were based on historical law application and other supreme court cases. Go ahead and look up acts of 1790 and then the repeal of that act in 1795 defining natural born.

    See what I’m doing Vince? I’m not afraid of what I state, because every time, it is VERIFIABLE. People reading my posts don’t have to take my word for it. They can check for themselves.

    This hurts you in comparison because you don’t do this, in fact.

    Vince, you have now brought up (repeated actually) two ideas at the end of your post that I have debunked. The fact that there is a seal on a COLB that Obama won’t show to anyone but a random website means nothing. What if the document is forged? You said that Onaka said that it was legit. You are incorrect. Again, neither Fukino nor Anaka have EVER talked about the supposed COLB on record. NEVER. If they have and you have any official comment of theirs regarding the COLB Obama claims to have, please link me to this document. I will read it and then take back everything I have said. So please do it, because I do not want to be wrong. But I have extensively searched because I want to be sure that I am not making false claims (unlike you) —- I desire the truth.

    Your last point is answered by what I have just said.

    The only way to clear up confusion would be for Obama to release the original birth certificate. But he won’t because

    VINCE TREACY’s explanations are incorrect. Period.

  128. Still no converts, huh, Propaganda Boy? How’s that result oriented analysis working out for you? Resorting to the ad hominem on Vince since you couldn’t win, eh? Smear the messenger when you can’t defeat the message?

    Sucks to be you.

    Semi-colon.

  129. Shadow,

    Then what do you plan to do to resolve this issue? Do you have legal support? Are there ‘enough’ of like-minded people to do anything constructive or are you simply trying to vent your real or perceived concern for what you consider a constitutional crisis?

  130. Ahh, Buddha, only you resort to attacks. At least Vince tries to address arguments.

    What I have said stands not only because it is sound, but because it is verifiable. People can check if what I said is true. Nothing I have said is false. What does that mean?

    At best, Mr. Treacy has hope, but no case because he cannot explain why this won’t go away? Why won’t it go away? Obama won’t show… in fact he can’t show or else he’s in JAIL, unless he gets pardoned.

    My arguments speak for themselves precisely because they can be verified. I don’t care what you say. Anyone reading has learned the argument and sees the point. I’ve already won because my integrity is maintained. Everything I have said is true.

    I think Mr. Treacy is a fine man but I have exposed his argument — he cannot produce one shred of official documentation or statement from Fukino or Onaka about the supposed COLB. Why not? It doesn’t exist.

  131. Buddha:

    “My arguments speak for themselves precisely because they can be verified. I don’t care what you say.”

    **********

    I always love an opponent who confidently tells the world that regardless of whatever new information he receives, he will never change his opinion. I see precious little verification from Shadow and an abundance of supposition and reliance on secondary sources with an ax to grind. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I am still waiting for Shadow’s.

  132. Mr. Leo,

    Thank you for your inquiry. This isn’t about me. I am just showing that these others arguments are not correct, factually, that’s all.

    Mr. Berg on the East Coast and Mr. Kreep out West are working on the case. I have followed them for a long time now.

    I will not talk badly about Mr. Treacy, he at least civilly discuess things, I respect him for that. But this clown BIL guy will continue to try to defame me. Pay no attention to him. The clue that one is a troll/loser is that he never mentions the issues. So he betrays himself. Meanwhile, I keep talking about productive stuff.

    My mission is to show people how shady this whole deal is. I can’t for the life of me think of ANY possible answer why Obama would refuse for SO LONG to release the original birth certification if he has one … and he has one. Again, Fukino has officially said this and I have linked it. I think it is easy to see why someone might find it tragically unreasonable to not show something that is a strict qualification for President of the USA. Don’t you?

    By spreading the awareness of the case we will at the very least put pressure on the issue. Even if my conclusion were wrong, at least someone wouldn’t get off the hook or special treatment. Look, this man has sealed EVERY record he has — medical, college, law, etc. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

    That is unprecedented in modern presidential history. Look it up! Verifiable again! Bush, Clinton, McCain in this election … ALL showed such documents!

    Help me out here LEO, please, I beg you. Given all that I have said, and what others have said, maybe you can help me and them simultaneously.

    If he has nothing to hide, that is, he REALLY is born in Hawaii, why not show? Please, I really want to know. Can you come up with anything? Something!
    Anyone?
    Bueller?

    I’ve thought long and hard. Maybe I’m not creative enough. I’d rather here from someone like you anyway who is open enough to have a real dialogue.

  133. Shadow:

    why would he not be a citizen if his mother was 18 and not 19? What does it say about the citizenship of an American child born to an American mother and a non-American father? You really did not answer the question.

    As far as the constitution goes I certainly want to abide by it but you havent yet made the case that he is not a citizen. If his mother is a citizen then he is either a citizen or not a citizen if he was born outside the US but you havent brought up any relevant case law that says that or at least you havent explained it well enough for me as a layman to understand.

    Lets say my daughter goes to france and has sex with a german national and then moves to china and has the baby in china, all the while retaining her American citizenship what is the baby? Is she french because that is the place of conseption or german because that is the nationality of the father or is she chinese because she is born in china? If the father wanted her she could be a german citizen, she certainly is not french and it would have to be determined if she could be a chinese citizen. She certainly would be an American citizen by virtue of her mothers citizenship unless of course her mother renounced her American citizenship and moved to germany to be with the father. But even if she did that because the child was born an American would not she [child] still be an American citizen because she cannot renounce her citizenship because she is not yet of age? So I would say that Barrack Obama is the legitimate president of the US unless you can find a document that was prepared under oath in some foreign country after the age of 21 where he renounces his citizenship

    Unless you can answer all of this satisfactorly and with legal precedents you are wasting my time and your own.

    Any lawyers? have I got that right?

  134. Mespo,

    What’s the new information???

    My point was that everything I have said is verifiable. I debunked Treacy’s assertion about Fukino and Onaka.

    You then say, “I always love an opponent who confidently tells the world that regardless of whatever new information he receives, he will never change his opinion.”

    I never said this. You invented it. In fact, anyone who has read me and has an open mind will see that I said I’m willing to take back all that I have said if you can bring up Fukino or Onaka’s statements about the supposed COLB. I’m still waiting. Know why Treacy can’t do that? He doesn’t have the new information, as you say. Why? They have never commented on it. End of story.

  135. Mespo:

    have you or anyone else read the Rubyiat? I read it yesterday for the first time and was wondering if I got the gist of it. I think there is a bit more to it than I might understand but basically he is talking about taking life as it comes and not wasiting it but enjoy it and take time to smell the flowers. Also love well. Maybe a bit of a follower of Epicurus?

  136. Bron,

    Because I am not a trickster, nor a pawn, but rather a truth seeker I did the research for you. I think you should be satisfied with my findings and indeed be reassured that I am a man of integrity.

    from immigration.findlaw.com

    “The laws governing whether or not a child born outside of the United States acquires U.S. citizenship from parents have changed several times. You’ll need to look at the law that was in effect on the date of the child’s birth (and the parents’ birth, if grandparents were U.S. citizens) for guidance. These laws differ for the following time periods:

    prior to May 24, 1934
    May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941
    January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
    December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, and
    November 14, 1986 to present.
    To read about the law that was in effect at the time of your birth, see U.S. Immigration Made Easy, by Ilona Bray (Nolo).”

    Notice that they differ for the time periods and the circumstances. The only thing relevant is what I said, which is true: according to the law of the time, Obama needed to be born to a woman who was a 5 year resident after the age of 14. SA Dunham was not. Again, what have I done? Made a claim that is verifiable. I’m a fact checker and a truth seeker! It is true what I have said. Period. Doesn’t this give me more, not less credibility?

    Sometimes it takes a while to gain credibility — that’s why I’m willing to take the time to show you. Because I care and this is NOT a game or a name calling exchange to me.

    I am very pleased that you would like to follow the Constitution. Currently the “President” and the Senate are trying to pull another fast one — make a law that gives full representation to D.C. in the House of Representatives. This is expressly forbidden in our Constitution. If they want to amend the Constitution, fine. But they are trying to do whatever they want. Check Steve Chapman’s article about this. It is called “Misstating the Constitution.” He is a non-partisan editorial writer.

    Thanks,
    Shadow

  137. Shadow:

    I dont think he was saying that you said it, he was implying that you are a fanatical irrational idealogue. Although I dont want to put words in Mespo’s pen hand so I could be mistaken.

    Mespo is very polite but does have a wonderful way with words.

  138. Shadow:

    Even more than the fool who is certain, I love the bigger one who, having his logical errors exposed, declares victory with the smug but invariably incorrect dismissal line, “End of story.” Did you work for the Bush White House?

  139. Shadow:

    I think the owner of this blog is against DC statehood too.

    Ok but what does it say about the mother being born in the US? it sounds to me as if they are talking about a mother that came from another country say at the age of 10 so then she would have to reside in the US from her 14th birthday to her 19th and that makes sense to me, it establishes some credibility, but someone whose parents are born here, I think there grandchild is a citizen. I think you are reading this wrong.

  140. Shadow:

    I take that back about Mespo being polite, but he still has a wonderful way with words and now I know he dosent suffer fools very well.

  141. ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I am still waiting for Shadow’s.’

    —–
    Popcorn…?

  142. At least some are lurking and see the validity of my points.

    It is true that until I have undeniable proof, people won’t be persuaded. Patty, I don’t blame you. I personally believe that not showing is unreasonable. I know others want the ultimate in smoking gun. I believe they will get it because I cannot answer the question of why the President will not show. If he’s legit he has nothing to lose and guys like Berg will go away, as they’ve said. Sit back and as Terrell Owens says, “Get your popcorn READDDDDDDDDDDY!” The ride is just beginning.

    Bron,

    I read what I posted and it is clear to me. Acquiring citizenship has different guidelines that have to do with the citizenship of the parent and grandparents. On Aug 4, 1961 the law is that for a birth in which ONE PARENT is a citizen, said parent needs to be 5 years citizen after age 14. SA Dunham does not meet this and therefore she does NOT transmit NBC status to her son, Barack Obama. That is why his place of birth is critical … and in question.

  143. Bron98:

    Thank you for the compliment — either way it seems.

    Not my favorite work, but on the topic of the “Rubaiyat,” I am sure you know that FitzGerald translated these quatrains several times with slightly different syntax and arrangement in each of the five editions he created. The original work from great mathematician Khayyam was quite nihilistic and fatalistic, and since it was sure to offend the devout Muslims of his day, was penned anonymously. Khayyam it seems was both brilliant and prudent. The thrust of his work was the fragility of human life, and the inevitability of death. Khayyam seems to be dealing with the same topic as Dylan Thomas in his classic work depicting rage against death.

    Compare, however, Thomas’ obstinacy:

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
    Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    with Khayyam’s resignation:

    XXIV
    Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
    Before we too into the Dust descend;
    Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie
    Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and–sans End!

    XXV
    Alike for those who for To-day prepare,
    And those that after some To-morrow stare,
    A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
    “Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.”

  144. ‘Even more than the fool who is certain, I love the bigger one who, having his logical errors exposed, declares victory with the smug but invariably incorrect dismissal line, “End of story.”…


    mespo, jujubes…?

  145. Patty C:

    I am thinking jaw breakers or salt-water taffy or maybe just biting down on a bullet! Jujubes make sense too as we while away the time listening to the crickets chirp.

  146. We’ve come to an end here, then. I find that to be OK.

    The question is, when something comes out, will you be here to say you’re sorry?

    If I’m wrong I’ll return and say if I was wrong.

  147. I go away for a couple of days and find out on my return that the “Obama is not a citizen” nonsense is still being put forth as if it is fact. Shadow, since the Supremes have already decided this issue, you might as well say your were wrong now.
    Mespo and the rest, good work.

  148. Shadow,

    There are 5 lawyers, including Professor Turley, who are satisfied that Mr. Obama has met all of the requirements. One lawyer, Bob Esq., appears to prefer a bit more evidence to resolve all the questions. As a non-lawyer, I read all that I could regarding Obama’s birth certificate controversy, I decided I had enough evidence, I voted, although I still prefer Mr. Obama’s full submission of all the evidence to quash any speculation completely and unequivocally.

    In science, all evidence, especially that which is contrary to a supposed or assumed position is critical to consider and all facts must be open to refutation. That *same* standard does not apply to the law. I have often been perplexed with legal issues when scientific facts I submitted to legal teams did not matter in a legal case (factual v. legal case). Often, the courts are not there to argue the legitimacy or accuracy of facts—especially when deference is involved—but whether or not the legal reasoning is relevant and/or the law was violated. The lawyers here can phrase that last sentence much better than I just did.

  149. FFLeo:

    “Often, the courts are not there to argue the legitimacy or accuracy of facts—especially when deference is involved—but whether or not the legal reasoning is relevant and/or the law was violated.”

    **********

    Alas, FFLeo you are a keen observer again. The law prefers finality to absolute scientific accuracy. Breathing life into that cliche, “good enough for government work.” And so it is.

  150. Mespo,

    I have a profound respect for the law and I respect many lawyers; however, I most often do not comprehend either.

  151. Shadow said “according to the law of the time, Obama needed to be born to a woman who was a 5 year resident after the age of 14. SA Dunham was not.”

    Then he said “Acquiring citizenship has different guidelines that have to do with the citizenship of the parent and grandparents. On Aug 4, 1961 the law is that for a birth in which ONE PARENT is a citizen, said parent needs to be 5 years citizen after age 14. SA Dunham does not meet this and therefore she does NOT transmit NBC status to her son, Barack Obama. That is why his place of birth is critical.”

    What is he talking about? Obama’s mother was a “natural born” American citizen, her parents (his grandparents) were natural born citizens, and she lived her entire life up until the birth of her son in 1961 in the United States. Where does he get this stuff about “5 year resident after the age of 14”?

    Here are excerpts from the wiki bio: QUOTE ON (footnotes and sentences omitted) Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, USA while her father was serving in the U.S. Army.

    Her parents, Madelyn Payne and Stanley Dunham, were born in Kansas, met in Wichita, and married on May 5, 1940. Her father’s ancestors settled in Kempton, Indiana in the 1840s and her mother’s ancestors settled in Dinsmore, Arkansas also in 1840s. Ann had mainly English ancestors, and smaller amounts of Irish, German, Dutch, Scottish and French ancestors. She was a distant cousin of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and former U.S. President Harry S Truman.

    After the attack on Pearl Harbor her father joined the U.S. Army and her mother worked at a Boeing plant in Wichita. At the end of World War II she moved with her parents from Wichita to Ponca City, Oklahoma, from there to Vernon, Texas, and then to El Dorado, Kansas. In 1955 the family moved to Seattle, Washington, where her father was a furniture salesman and her mother was a vice president of a bank.

    In 1956 the family moved to Mercer Island, an Eastside suburb of Seattle, so that 13-year-old Ann could attend Mercer Island High School which had just opened.

    In 1960, after she graduated from high school, the Dunham family moved to Hawaii so that her parents could pursue further business opportunities in the new state, and she enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. There she met Barack Obama, Sr., a student… QUOTE OFF

  152. Vince,
    The only quibble that one could have for your marvelous work on this thread was that you took the guy to be open to logic. I read everything you posted and went to the links you provided. I also read everything he posted and went to his links. The difference between the two of you was huge. When you gave a synopsis of your links it rang true to the original. He on the other hand parsed his links to come out the way he wanted. for instance his link on providing a birth certificate to someone born outside Hawaii. He made it into a smoking gun, while you demolished its relevance to the debate.

    What we were dealing with was a clever propagandist, utilizing Rove/Norquist/Goebbels debating tactics. He separates himself from the run of the mill “Dittoheads” in that he is more articulate, however, the result is the same. He kept asking the question “Why doesn’t Obama release the evidence?” On three occasions I provided him a reason for Obama not to do so and on each occasion he ignored my point, rather than refute it.

    This whole operation is a mirror of the tactics that the faux
    conservatives have used since for decades, which is to de-legitimize their opponents through barrages of innuendo.
    As I said elsewhere it started with Clinton, even before his election, when it was deemed he could be a threat to their power. Obama, feel what you will about his policies, represents a tremendous threat to the powers-that-be of the
    Corporatists. As we saw this weekend the infamous Koch Family of John Birch Society fame has helped fund a $50 million campaign to do just that.

    What I find the most disturbing in this is that out there on the fringes exist the crazies who ingest this crap whole. They are typically angry, violent individuals with psychopathic tendencies. The concerted effort to make Obama’s
    Presidency to be illegitimate is an effort to stir up these forces, with possible violent, tragic consequences. I lived through the killings of the 60’s, where this demonizing of the opponent led to the deaths of four great leaders and resulted in Nixon’s Presidency. As I know, you know, it can’t happen here. Thank you though Vince for a wonderful exercise in debunking this propagandist.

  153. Thanks, Mike. I am actually directing the logic to you and the other readers of this blog rather than to shadow.

    Here at jonathanturley.org, VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL ™(c)(all rights reserved) the stadards are high.

  154. Vince,

    As Mike said, “The only quibble that one could have for your marvelous work on this thread was that you took the guy to be open to logic.” Indeed, pearls before swine, but that in no way degrades the value of the pearls. Shady’s hope that “At least some are lurking and see the validity of my points. It is true that until I have undeniable proof, people won’t be persuaded” is simply that – a hope. A hope in vain for that matter. Thanks to you, any lurkers with the ability to string the simplest logics will see why cert was rightfully denied and the President’s citizenship is beyond reasonable questioning. The answer to ignorance is education. You throughly educated anyone without a pre-set agenda who stumbled across this thread. Shady made no gains and your logic and proof dominated the floor. That is victory. Victory like the Jayhawks just inflicted on Mizzou. (go hawks!)

  155. I see blood on the floor and it’s not Vince’s. Good work Vince, again. The only way for the stupid to prevail is for the intelligent to say nothing.

  156. Since you have only tried to malign me once again, and unsuccessfully I might add, I will set Vince straight again.

    What is my purpose? It has always been to show that it is possible that Mr. Obama was not born in the US. In fact, I have shown that it is more than likely. Why is it more likely?

    The only one I thank for posts here is LEO. Why? He has an astute mind he showed me something useful, unlike Vince or the other hobgoblins. What did he show me? Law is not science, it does not desire to make a truly accurate picture. Well, for better or worse, I approach things as a scientist and follow the facts, human motivations, etc. Let me loop it together for you all too stupid to get it. At this point, yes, legally, he has done enough — AT THIS POINT — because there is no law to check candidates NOR a commission to do such things. Again, if there is one, I would think everyone would know about it. But guess what? No one can tell me what it is, where it is, who heads it. Many Americans are surprised that this is in fact the case.

    Whether he has done enough legally [to this point] has nothing to do with whether it is reasonable to assume that he may not be born in Hawaii. I think it’s reasonable to assume he was not there because

    a) people can get birth certificates in Hawaii not being born there
    b) He won’t show his original

    This is the easiest reasoning in the entire world! If you are an Obama supporter and you don’t care that he’s hiding things, fine. Don’t argue! Why shouldn’t you?

    Because you can’t explain for the life of you why he won’t show! I’m glad this is not going away because that means people who are reasonable still care about a man who parades honesty, trust, and transparency — yet won’t show his real birth certificate. Sheesh, he won’t show anything personal of his. I wonder why?

    Also, Vince, read the immigration law. I’m astounded you still don’t get it. IT IS IMMIGRATION LAW –> did you read that? IMMIGRATION LAW. Go read it. You can’t transmit automatic (natural born status) to progeny in 1961 as a single parent whose father is not also American — UNLESS you have lived 5 years in the US after age 14. Clear cut. Definitive.

    I’m talking about the law, ignoramus, read it again. Why is this so hard? Read the immigration law. I gave you a link.

    If you don’t want to believe it, don’t argue … because you aren’t bringin anything to the table but political baggage. It’s laughable! You guys actually believe that I would want Biden or Pelosi as President OVER Obama? You’re nuts! I’m independent, you polarized buffoons. That’s why I see this whole case as sketchball city.

  157. Come on, fight some more! Show that desperation!

    I love to see a propaganda troll squirm when pinned like a butterfly on display.

    Independent. (snicker)

    Yeah, riiighhht.

    So come on, show some more of that sound and fury signifying nothing except your own ignorance and arrogance that YOU are the sole interpreter of what is and is not valid evidence.

    You’re a marginally better writer than the usual trolls we get here, but your logic, “facts” and methodology is still sub-par. When you can’t win, you smear. You smear then claim to have been wronged. How very Rovian. pssst . . . even your methods betray your true loyalty.

    Enjoy reporting back to your bosses that you were a complete failure at this task, hack.

    Come on, whine and cry some more. It makes me giggle.

  158. Shadow, name calling by an anonymous poster does not help a case. If I do not respond in kind, it is because I prefer to let your own words sink you.

  159. While you parade Buddha is laughing, who has ONLY called out names the whole time.

    Your words can’t sink me because I’ve done my research and everything I have stated is a fact. Leave it up to the people to decide … which is why this issue won’t go away.

    It is unreasonable in any sane man’s mind (political non partisan) to let the so called President get by without showing a real birth certificate that we know he has.

  160. Propagandist get the respect they deserve. And in case you missed the important part, which it is obvious that you have an issue with salience, Shady, what I said about you the propagandist was less vital than what I was saying about your methods, Mr. Thin Skin. Propaganda is as propaganda does, sport. Some days I’m the teacher and some days I’m the hammer, but like all the regulars here, I’m capable of and have demonstrated the ability to be either. We often take turns here and show deference to the work of others. And why should I rehash work that Vince had already done and done so well when I can ridicule your method and irritate you all at the same time?

    But you keep flailing about. Your every post only digs you deeper and paints you more the propagandist than ever.

    You’re not smart enough to walk away from an intractable position.

    I find that entertaining.

  161. Any honest man respects what I have done. I will return to this thread when we find out what Obama is hiding. At that time, you’ll hide behind a different argument, but the result will be the same:

    Buddha is Crying

  162. Shadow,

    The best method—outside of obvious lying—of losing an argument is to employ the most common emotive mistake of ‘argumentum ad hominem’. Although a prevalently exhibited fallacy of logic, ad hominem attacks have no legitimacy whatsoever during the course of the scientific method or in logical debate. As fallible humans, we all—at one time or another—will sometimes succumb to this ineffective method, although as Vince Treacy stated, such methods will quickly and permanently sink your *own* ship of foolish illogic with all fools aboard through your *own* words and without assistance by those of others. I have erroneously employed ad hominem fallacies and suffered the consequences.

    Questioning a person’s standing and professional credentials is acceptable; however, name calling only demonstrates the purveyor’s ignorance or his complete loss of logical influence and clarity. As frustrating as arguments often become, emotional appeals will destroy any credibility of whatever logical underpinnings your stance may have had at the outset of the debate.

    When dealing with Mr. Treacy et al., I suggest that you state your questions in a numbered sequence and request his response to each one. Through that method, we can all follow what he and others reply. If you receive no reply, then repeat the question *once* and then concede with a response such as “for whatever reason you chose or preferred not to directly respond to question #3,” etc. That will illustrate to others and me that he does not know the answer or simply wants to evade a response, assuming that he has the time and a need to correspond. Remember though, he has no obligation to reply other than his desire to educate and assist. I appreciate the time attorneys take out of their busy lives to post within this blawg and I have learned a lot from such efforts.

    Your post has sparked debate that has been informative. At some point, you must concede. If you continue using ad hominem arguments, others and I will simply ignore your quest for an answer. Remember also that even the most patient of debaters will tire of repetitious rebuttals to the same arguments, especially if opinions they encounter fall within one of the categories of logical fallacy that often permeate debates.

  163. Mespo:

    on the politeness issue I was joking, you are ever/always the gentleman.

    thank you for the info on Omar K. I did not know that it had been translated 5 times. I did get that he was a bit skittesh in his verse and as you mentioned I chalked it up to the religous climate of the day.

    I have a microscopic knowledge of Dylan Thomas, I like Kipling and some of Byron’s works.

    I am pretty limited on the poetry side. Engineers usually dont have enough time to read the classics but I have tried and do enjoy that type of thing. I took latin in high school and 2 years in college and I would like to take it up again. I still have my first year latin book from freshman year.

    I have bought De Officiis (in english) and have started to read it. I hope you wont mind a few questions.

  164. William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

    THE SECOND COMING

    [first verse]

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  165. Shadow:

    Ditto what FFLEO wrote.

    I am a staunch conservative and I think your arguments have no merit. Although I wish he would just release it so this foolishness can be put to rest once and for all. But if he dosent that is his business and personally I am satisfied that he has met all constitutional requirements for the office.

    And using someone with the integrity of Thomas Sowell is criminal in my mind.

  166. FFLEO,

    Well said! However may I point out this . . .

    “Former Federal LEO 1, March 2, 2009 at 12:03 am

    Mespo,

    I have a profound respect for the law and I respect many lawyers; however, I most often do not comprehend either.”

    That last post shows that you comprehend just fine. :D You are too modest.

  167. Bron,

    Are you saying I ever referred to Thomas Sowell? Then I know you definitely haven’t been reading my posts.

    I’m a liberal — I appreciate it LEO if you would tell as much to BIL. It was I who brought up the ad hominem concept at the very beginning of my debating. Go check — because all BIL did was NOT talk about issues.

    If you are too lazy to check the posts, please cease with your insults and false attributions to me.

  168. Mespo and Bron,

    If I may play FFLEO for a moment:

    I knew a man, his brain was so small,
    He couldn’t think of nothing at all.
    Hes not the same as you and me.
    He doesn’t dig poetry. hes so unhip that
    When you say Dylan,
    he thinks you’ re talking about Dylan Thomas,
    Whoever he was.
    The man ain’t got no culture,
    But its alright, ma,
    Everybody must get stoned.

  169. No, Shady, I talked about your method and left the details of the issues largely to Vince. I made that clear, but then again, you and clarity? Oil and water. Obfuscation is the propagandist tool of first resort.

  170. Gyges:

    May I quote you (and Bob Dylan)– often?

    *************

    Bron98:

    “Strive for perfection in everything you do. Take the best that exists and make it better. When it does not exist, design it.”

    –Sir (Frederick) Henry Royce British Engineer, 1863-1933

    This reads like poetry to me. Remember Vonnegut knew his way around a blueprint.

  171. Bron9:

    I enjoy Latin too. It doesn’t bark at you like German, or try to seduce you like French. Latin seems the language for sturdy men in stern times. To the point but full of duty, honor, and respect for law and achievement, you can see its underpinnings in the syntax and even the verse. Since it dies eons ago, it has an almost mystical, ancient quality to it and since it serves as the backdrop for what I do and is the precursor of our legal system it is more than passing fancy for me. Good luck in you studies, and ask whenever you feel the urge. I can promise you only a genuine interest to help, but not the in depth knowledge to answer.

    As to your comment about my impatience with fools, I’ll offer you the famous Latin proverb: “Aquila non capit muscam.”

  172. mespo,

    You task me to brush up on my Latin all the time and for that I must thank you. Would that I were as comfortable with it as you.

  173. Gyges,

    I never read or heard those Paul Simon lyrics before from that 1965/66 era and I just looked them up. I was listening to and playing country music then and that long-haired, New-Age, hippy-type pinko commie stuff did not play in my boots n’ saddle in-crowd clique. Neat song though. Thanks. (I must have mellowed…)

  174. FFLEO,

    Even though I love Paul Simon, I’m actually not a huge Simon and Garfunkle fan. That’s my favorite song on that Album, it’s the one that hints most strongly at the witty and clever song writer Paul Simon was going to become.

    As far as Country goes, you’re talking to a longtime fan of the Tennessee Plowboy.

  175. “Your words can’t sink me because I’ve done my research and everything I have stated is a fact.”

    “What is my purpose? It has always been to show that it is possible that Mr. Obama was not born in the US. In fact, I have shown that it is more than likely. Why is it more likely?”

    “Any honest man respects what I have done.”

    “It is unreasonable in any sane man’s mind (political non partisan) to let the so called President get by without showing a real birth certificate that we know he has.”

    “Whether he has done enough legally [to this point] has nothing to do with whether it is reasonable to assume that he may not be born in Hawaii. I think it’s reasonable to assume he was not there because
    a) people can get birth certificates in Hawaii not being born there
    b) He won’t show his original”

    Shady,
    The five of your quotes above explain why most of us see you as a troll, propagandist or fool, or any combination of same.
    Everything you’ve stated is NOT fact, it is supposition on your part. When you say that “In fact, I have shown that it is more than likely,” it is no fact and you haven’t done anything of the kind. Your next misstatement is that Obama hasn’t shown his real birth certificate. That’s not a fact but a convenient lie based on the false/unproven premise that the certificate he’s shown is not his real one.

    Finally, you may think it’s reasonable to assume that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, but not only is that also not fact, you base it on non-existent logic. Your evidence for people being able to get false birth certificates in Hawaii is based on Sun Yat Sen. He was born either November 12, 1866 or November 24 1870 and died March 12 1925. He died at a time 3.5 decades before Hawaii became a State and he was born when it was a backward (bureaucratically) Kingdom. That is your only evidence that you can get phony birth certificates in Hawaii. This is not a fact and not even is it a tangentially reasonable assumption.

    You rest your other assumption on why he won’t show what you want him to show. I have answered you on that point three times and you have ignored, not refuted my answer. Just as you have either mis-characterized, misstated and/or ignored Vince’s complete demolishing of your case.

    I hope for your sake that you are perceptive enough to understand the points I’ve just made, probably because you’re a paid troll or willing propagandist who cynically spouts this tripe, but I must say at this point I doubt it. Whatever your IQ, you have no sense of logic or rhetoric. I hope your folks have left you some money or good connections, because without them your only career hope is as a Limbaugh or Goebbels. If you are a liberal as you state, something I doubt, you only prove that liberals have some dumb people among them also.

    Most ironically is the fact that you see yourself as flummoxing everyone with your rapier wit, where the truth is that we have all begun to either laugh at you, pity you, or both.

  176. FFLEO,
    As a son of the West tell me how a long-haired(once when I had it), New-Age, hippy-type pinko Jewboy from Brooklyn counts country/western/bluegrass as the type that moves him the most.For me it started with Tex, Gene and Roy, fueled by a love for Westerns that started with their “B” movies on the TV and then solidified by High Noon, Shane, Vera Cruz and The Searchers.

    As I grew older I discovered Bill Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, Del
    McCoury, Ralph Stanley & Vassar Clements in bluegrass. In C&W it was Hank Sr., Johnny Cash, The Carters, Bob Wills, Jimmy Rodgers, Dolly etc., etc. I could listen to the Opry on NYC radio then. I of course can go on forever with my favorites. A good fiddle playing, or the twang of a pedal steel guitar raises wonderful emotions within me that no other music seems to match.

    I traveled and camped extensively in the West in the 60’s and 70’s and first saw what the heavens at night really looked like camping in The Grand Tetons National Forest and watching a meteor shower on a hill outside of Rapid City, SD. The West met and exceeded my childhood expectations fostered in the movies. There is a part of me that will always be a cowboy at heart, even if I know the difference between myth and reality.

    It is sad when for political reasons politicians and their sponsors try to carve up this country into competing regions and philosophy’s. Despite our different backgrounds we all share a common heritage and should glory in the differences that actually can unite us.

  177. Mike,

    Have you heard of a singer by the name of Dawn Landes? She’s a younger bluegrass singer, but man does she have a great voice.

    Buddha,

    I can almost forgive Carmichael for “Heart and Soul.”

  178. Gyges,
    I’ve heard some of her stuff, she’s good. These days I get my Bluegrass from Pandora as I hang out on the laptop, so my musicology gets a bit dim unless its’ an artist I’m already familiar with. Imagine and old fart like me watching the Grammy’s, clueless. As for Heart and Soul that and Chopsticks are the only songs I can play on the piano, plus it was a great Doo Wop hit. It may be more information than you need but I can’t sing a lick either. My wife, Daughters and Son-In-Law all have great voices and I get weird looks when I sing with them at Passover Seders.

    Vince,
    Seldom Scene are simply great.

    Buddha,
    How old are you? Remembering Stardust. Are you old enough to have watched Hoagy on TV?

  179. Mike,

    I’m 42. But I according to those knew me as a child, I was born that way. I don’t think I really had friends my age until girls became a consideration. My grandfather was a huge Hoagy and Hank, Sr. fan. Since I was his #1 fan, it rubbed off on me. I’ve seen a kinescope of Hoagy, I think it was at the Grand Old Opry, but only the one.

  180. Buddha,
    42 is good. The truth is life gets better with age if you keep your mind open which tells me you’ve got a lot of great things ahead of you. Your Grandfather had taste, which helps explain your class. Hoagy at one point had a half hour TV show
    when I was a young’un. Of course he opened and closed with stardust. He seemed a cool guy to me.

    I known what you mean about being born old because it took me awhile to finally realize people found me likable so I used to hang out with the adults, or was it really that I discovered that I liked myself? What can you expect from a therapist but heavy seeming crap like that? Anyway this thread has definitely turned more pleasant, if somewhat off topic of late.

  181. Bar nuts…?

    p.s. mespo, for future reference, jujubes pair well with Prosecco or ‘champagne’, as does curry-parmesan popcorn… :P

    http://www.tantemarie.com/recipes/horsdoeuvres/spicynuts.html

    This recipe was inspired by several sweet/spicy nut recipes that I have tried over the years. This is my favorite because the combination of maple and brown sugar with the bite that comes from the ginger and cayenne makes them completely addictive.

    Tante Marie’s Spicy Nuts

    Ingredients
    4 tablespoons butter
    3 tablespoons pure maple syrup
    3 tablespoons dark brown sugar
    3 thin slices fresh ginger
    1 teaspoon ground ginger
    1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom
    1 teaspoon kosher salt
    1/4 teaspoon Tabasco sauce, or to taste
    1/4 teaspoon Cayenne pepper
    1 pound shelled pecans, almonds or walnuts

    Instructions

    To make the pecans, preheat the oven to 300 degrees. Line a baking sheet with foil or a Sil-Pat.

    Combine the butter, syrup, brown sugar, ginger, ground ginger, cardamom, salt, Tabasco, and cayenne in a small saucepan and simmer over low heat for 2-3 minutes, stirring often until sugar is completely dissolved. Place the nuts in a large bowl and pour the glaze through a strainer into the bowl. Toss the nuts well to coat them evenly with the glaze. Spread the nuts in a single layer on the prepared baking sheet and bake 30-40 minutes, stirring at 15 minute intervals, until nuts are lightly browned and almost dry when you toss them. Slide the foil or Sil-Pat off the baking sheet and onto a rack to cool the nuts completely.

    Nuts can be made ahead and stored in airtight containers at room temp. or in the freezer, for up to one month.

    ——————————————-

    http://www.chow.com/recipes/14260

    Total: 25 mins /Active: 5 mins/ Makes: 8 to 10 servings (5 cups)

    Roasted Rosemary Walnuts

    INGREDIENTS

    * 5 cups walnuts
    * 1/4 cup olive oil
    * 1/4 cup fresh rosemary, coarsely chopped
    * 4 teaspoons kosher salt
    * 1 tablespoon granulated sugar
    * 2 teaspoons freshly ground black pepper

    INSTRUCTIONS

    1. Heat the oven to 350°F and arrange a rack in the middle.
    2. Place nuts on a baking sheet. Add remaining ingredients and mix with your hands to evenly coat.
    3. Bake until nuts are browned and toasted, stirring occasionally, about 20 minutes. Let cool on the baking sheet, transfer to a bowl, and serve.

    ————————————-

    http://www.recipezaar.com/Roasted-Rosemary-Walnuts-53121

    Roasted Rosemary Walnuts
    Recipe #53121 | 30 min | 15 min prep

    Ingredients

    * 2 1/2 tablespoons olive oil
    * 2 teaspoons dried rosemary
    * 3/4-1 teaspoon sea salt, to taste
    * 1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
    * 2 cups walnut halves

    Directions

    Pre-heat oven to 350 degrees.

    Line baking sheet with foil.

    Heat olive oil with rosemary, salt and cayenne, stirring until mixed.

    Put nuts on foil-lined sheet, pour oil mixture over them, spreading evenly.

    Roast, stirring once or twice, 10- 15 min, until fragrant.

    Let cool and eat, or wrap in foil to store.

  182. mespo727272 1, March 1, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Patty C:

    I am thinking jaw breakers or salt-water taffy or maybe just biting down on a bullet! Jujubes make sense too as we while away the time listening to the crickets chirp.
    —–
    mespo, posted some recipes, ‘awaiting moderation’, but while I’m still thinking of it, here’s the ‘candy jar’ wine list…

    http://www.winemag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=44E98ADB6B874457A640ADD39CDC6E74

  183. Patty C:

    You know I had some fine asparagus soup today. Here’s the recipe courtesy of my wife who grabbed it off the web:

    2 Tablespoons olive oil
    1 bay leaf
    1 1/2 cups chopped onion
    1 medium green pepper, chopped
    1/2 to 1 cup diced potato
    5 cups chopped asparagus (set aside some of the tips)
    1 teaspoon salt, or to taste
    2 1/2 cups water or stock
    2 cups soy milk
    pinch of allspice
    freshly ground black pepper to taste
    splash of tamari
    1 teaspoon of thyme
    chopped scallions, for garnish

    Sauté the onions in the soup pot, along with the bay leaf, until the onions turn translucent. Add the chopped green bell pepper, diced potato, chopped asparagus (leaving out those tips you set aside), water or stock, and salt. Bring water to a boil, then lower to a simmer and cook about 10 minutes or until the potato is tender.

    Remove the bay leave, and purée small batches of the soup in a blender along with batches of the soy milk. (Or, if you have one, purée the soup right in the pot with a submersible blender. We have one of those and it’s great.) Purée until the texture is totally smooth.

    Return the soup to the simmering heat and add the seasonings to taste. Throw in the the aspargus tips you set aside and cook until they just turn tender. DO NOT let the soup boil, or the soy milk will separate out and get kind of clumpy. Watch the soup and stir constantly. Lower the heat the moment you notice the soy milk starts separating. You could also steam the asparagus tips in advance.

  184. Patty C:

    I’m off to the confectioner’s store tomorrow. Any excuse is a good one for the vino. That’s a great WE article. I’m sipping some Argentine Vina Las Perdices Viognie from Rick’s Wine Shop in Alexandria I picked up last month. It’s carries the princely price tag of $12.00, but it’s super.

  185. I really like viognie lately. We tried one, maybe the same one, recently from Argentina for $9 or 10! It was quite pleasant…

    Sounds groovy-I dig asparagus and soups and soy!

    If you have never had the Silver Palate carrot ginger soup, give it a whirl. It’s a keeper.

    I don’t know where JT is tonight, but with not further ado, this is/was my lead line…

    ‘Bar nuts…?’ ;)

    p.s. mespo, for future reference, jujubes pair well with Prosecco or ‘champagne’, as does curry-parmesan popcorn… :P

    http://www.tantemarie.com/recipes/horsdoeuvres/spicynuts.html

    This recipe was inspired by several sweet/spicy nut recipes that I have tried over the years. This is my favorite because the combination of maple and brown sugar with the bite that comes from the ginger and cayenne makes them completely addictive.

    Tante Marie’s Spicy Nuts

    Ingredients
    4 tablespoons butter
    3 tablespoons pure maple syrup
    3 tablespoons dark brown sugar
    3 thin slices fresh ginger
    1 teaspoon ground ginger
    1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom
    1 teaspoon kosher salt
    1/4 teaspoon Tabasco sauce, or to taste
    1/4 teaspoon Cayenne pepper
    1 pound shelled pecans, almonds or walnuts

    Instructions

    To make the pecans, preheat the oven to 300 degrees. Line a baking sheet with foil or a Sil-Pat.

    Combine the butter, syrup, brown sugar, ginger, ground ginger, cardamom, salt, Tabasco, and cayenne in a small saucepan and simmer over low heat for 2-3 minutes, stirring often until sugar is completely dissolved. Place the nuts in a large bowl and pour the glaze through a strainer into the bowl. Toss the nuts well to coat them evenly with the glaze. Spread the nuts in a single layer on the prepared baking sheet and bake 30-40 minutes, stirring at 15 minute intervals, until nuts are lightly browned and almost dry when you toss them. Slide the foil or Sil-Pat off the baking sheet and onto a rack to cool the nuts completely.

    Nuts can be made ahead and stored in airtight containers at room temp. or in the freezer, for up to one month.

    ——————————————-
    from:chow.com/recipes/14260

    Total: 25 mins /Active: 5 mins/ Makes: 8 to 10 servings (5 cups)

    Roasted Rosemary Walnuts

    INGREDIENTS

    * 5 cups walnuts
    * 1/4 cup olive oil
    * 1/4 cup fresh rosemary, coarsely chopped
    * 4 teaspoons kosher salt
    * 1 tablespoon granulated sugar
    * 2 teaspoons freshly ground black pepper

    INSTRUCTIONS

    1. Heat the oven to 350°F and arrange a rack in the middle.
    2. Place nuts on a baking sheet. Add remaining ingredients and mix with your hands to evenly coat.
    3. Bake until nuts are browned and toasted, stirring occasionally, about 20 minutes. Let cool on the baking sheet, transfer to a bowl, and serve.

    ————————————-

    from:recipezaar.com/Roasted-Rosemary-Walnuts-53121

    Roasted Rosemary Walnuts
    Recipe #53121 | 30 min | 15 min prep

    Ingredients

    * 2 1/2 tablespoons olive oil
    * 2 teaspoons dried rosemary
    * 3/4-1 teaspoon sea salt, to taste
    * 1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
    * 2 cups walnut halves

    Directions

    Pre-heat oven to 350 degrees.

    Line baking sheet with foil.

    Heat olive oil with rosemary, salt and cayenne, stirring until mixed.

    Put nuts on foil-lined sheet, pour oil mixture over them, spreading evenly.

    Roast, stirring once or twice, 10- 15 min, until fragrant.

    Let cool and eat, or wrap in foil to store

  186. Well over 2 Hundred posts, while exhausted, here it is in a nutshell:

    No one is completely right, and cant be until SCOTUS defines Natural Born Citizen…

    As far as the “Constitutional Law Professors, [Tribe and others] are concerned their opinions can be no greater than the federalists papers and those comments that are on record from those who wrote the 14th Amendment.

    AS FOR THE BUDDA: The best evidence is always that which is known to exist, in this case as admitted by the Hawaii Department of Health officials is the original that is on file, which BO has yet to produce…

    As for the McCain toss in,… HE IS NOT qualified for POTUS either, regardless of the Senate Resolution 511 that was sponsored by Democrats Claire, and Hillary and Obama, AND IF YOU READ THAT RESOLUTION, including that parts that were lined out, (that BO wanted but did not make it) it would appear that according to thos Senators who signed that non-binding piece of literature, that you STILL NEED TWO US PARENTS TO BE NATURAL BORN…

    In any event I voted for Bob Barr, because I voted my concious, and I realize that both the dems and repub’s are playing the entire field for their own selfish purposes, and neither party gives a dammed about the country, or they would have never allowed Glass Stegall to be trashed and it was BOTH parties and the Wall Street banks jealous greed over the profits they wanted, that they thought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were getting that cause this problem, and both the dems and the repub’s took that banker cash from the handles and next time you have a careless moment you might want to insist on term limits for the entire Congress , cause its thy who should have either DECLARED WAR, or passed on it, rather than granting any President the power that was given BUSH.

    I am certainly right of center in my beliefs, AND I SERVED MY COUNTRY, but I think it was unconcionable to have used the Patriot Act to trash our constitutional rights or even worse to have allowed for any kind of torture of prisoners…that used to be the difference between us and the so called third world countries, clearly we who have tolerated this mess deseve what we get, and youwho are honest know what that is…the loss of your country as you know it.

    The Constitution is not a living breathing document, its a principled set of rules, that we are to follow, and there is a way to change it if you dont like what it says, or if you want to tweak it, but that takes a specific procedure, and as long as we the people tolerate, wars without declarations from congress, and fiat money systems from private bankers, and a Secretary of State in direct violation of the clear language of that document, until we the people uphold this document, then we will surely curl up and die just as we have allowed that documents passages to be ignored.

    THis sad depression we are in is not just financial, it is total, lets hope the pain of it all will wake up those who regret no standing up for what matters, and its no things!

    A Patriot

  187. A Patriot:

    Well you had me wondering until the Barr vote. Here’s a little insight into your candidate from Wiki:

    “In 1999, during Clinton’s impeachment trial, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt offered money to anyone who could provide evidence that a prominent Republican had engaged in an extramarital affair. According to the American Journalism Review, investigators for Flynt said that Barr was “guilty of king-size hypocrisy”; according to a sworn affidavit by Barr’s ex-wife Gail, Bob Barr — a longtime outspoken abortion foe had acquiesced in his then-wife having an abortion in 1983 and has indeed paid for it. In accordance with his public offer, Flynt subsequently paid a sum of money to Gail Barr after she had made her sworn affidavit. Barr never publicly disputed the contents of his ex-wife’s affidavit. Investigators also reported that Barr invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding, so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he’d cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.”

    In the early 1990s, Barr was photographed at a fundraising event licking whipped cream off of a woman.[73] According to the Washington Post “Two people who observed the act say it wasn’t exactly a bosom lick but more like a neckline lick, at the sort of event where business and civic leaders perform dares to raise money. ‘Not exactly Mr. Effusive’, says Matt Towery, the former chairman of Newt Gingrich’s political organization, who observed the brief and awkward licking. ‘You can hardly get the guy to smile'”.”

    Given this conduct, I can see why the RepubliKlan made him House Manager for the Clinton impeachment. Probably the most upstanding guy they could find on their side of the aisle, or else they wanted somebody who thought like Clinton.

    Either way you have earned a new moniker. I dub you “A Dupe.” Finally, lest you believe the Constitution is not a living, breathing document, I’ll have the cops burst into your room tonight to search you and your significant other for contraband birth control devices under a long forgotten 19th law, since we all know that is not prohibited by the Constitution’s “rules.” Oh that’s right, it is prohibited by a case interpreting the organic language of the document found in the 14th Amendment and in the context of the other protections. Sad you put your life on the line for something you know so little about.

  188. Bob, Esq.: I’ve been gone for several days and just saw your post on my comments to T.Jefferson. This is probably stale by now, but I disagree that my argument was influenced by outcome determinism. First, the Best Evidence Rule is not in play in this case. A copy of an official document certified by the custodial agency is self-authenticating and is admissible to establish the truth of its contents. It is for that reason that the burden of proof shifts to the opponent of the document. To date I have not read or heard any arguments accusing Hawaiian officials of intentional misconduct or engaging in a conspiracy to hide the truth about the president’s birth. If people truly believe that a governmental cover-up has occurred, there are ways to explore that through discovery.

    My second point is that there are those who will never be satisfied, despite the evidence. That is simply an observation from our common experience. The law does not concern itself with that type of individual because a line has to be drawn somewhere. That is all the “reasonable man” doctrine means, and it is admittedly deemed arbitrary by the dissatisfied.

    Third, the Galileo case is not analogous because its outcome was in fact determined in advance, at a time when scientific observation was subordinate to religious doctrine. In other words, it was not “admissible evidence,” if you will, when offered for the purpose of contradicting doctrinal truths.

    Finally, your reminder that “law is not a search for truth, but for process” supports my position. We develop and refine process because we recognize the need for a structural framework in which to conduct the search. What we hope to arrive at is not the truth, but its cousins, the most probable and the most likely. That will never be sufficient for the birth certificate litigants.

  189. mespo et al,

    To be clear, last night I was offering ‘Bar Nuts’, as a ‘bar’ treat ‘on the house’, since the BHO debate apparently was not closed with Shadow’s pronouncement, ‘End of Story’ – two days ago.

    ‘In a nutshell’, I have nothing whatsoever to do with any self-described ‘Barr’ nuts, either!

    ‘Cheers!’

    ~from New England

  190. Mike Spindell:

    “As a son of the West tell me how a long-haired(once when I had it), New-Age, hippy-type pinko Jewboy from Brooklyn counts country/western/bluegrass as the type that moves him the most.”

    Did it all start with the Allman Brothers at the Fillmore East and thence expand as the Allmans joined the Grateful Dead on stage at RFK on 6/10/73 while Dicky Betts split off for a while to make “Highway Call” and Jerry Garcia continued his pedal steel guitar work into the mid 1970’s?

  191. Bob,
    You are correct sir about Allman’s and the Fillmore, also Creedence there too. I became a Deadhead in ’69 and also saw Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboy’s at Max’s Kansas City. In ’73 adding to the mix I saw The New Riders of the Purple Sage at The Academy of Music, but bought their albums earlier. I also saw Dickie Betts somewhere in NYC when he split off. Remember too, The Band played country and I saw them open for Dylan at MSG. You are so right though we Hippy’s loved us some country and your comment brought back most pleasant, but seldom visited memories.

    Truth be told though, Tex Ritter singing the theme song from High Noon in 1951 as I watched the movie with my Dad had me from the jump. There’s also a vague memory of the Weavers singing Goodnight Irene on the car radio, as I laid in the back seat coming home late from a family party in Brooklyn.

  192. Mike, here are the very young Weavers singing their classic Goodnight Irene circa 1949. As a kid, I had a crush on that pretty songstress Ronnie Gilbert.

    You and I grew up on the opposite sides of the country but music bridged many gaps.

  193. Mike and Bob,
    The closest thing to country music that this old “hippie” listened to was Country Joe and the Fish and maybe Canned Heat. Of course, those are the only ones that I can remember from those days!

  194. Mike,

    Tex Ritter’s theme for High Noon had me too.

    But here’s another acronym you may already know:

    GDTRFB

  195. FFLEO,
    Thank you so much for the link. Currently I’m listening to the Ry Cooder version, having gone through The Weavers, Jerry Lee Lewis and Willie Nelson versions. It is such a wonderful song. Across the country should mean nothing to us all. We are for better or worse all part of a culture that is a blend of the best and worst of us. The more we can concentrate on the stuff we can share the healthier we’ll be as a nation.

    I may mock faux conservatives for their hypocrisy, but as a 60’s Hippie type involved with the left I also found just as many hypocrites and knaves there. In the end it can never be the politics, but the good will among people. Our media culture has emphasized debate as two intractable sides yelling at each other. Perhaps debate, as on this site, can actually be a give and take discussions that can lead to mutual growth.

    As a example I remember in another comment you saying that you are for the death penalty as long as guilt is completely proven. My objection to the death penalty is based on the belief that if one innocent person dies it is invalidated. If someone, with no doubt of their identity, murders someone on camera and in front of witnesses I don’t have qualms about the guilty person being put to death. Perhaps that’s because I, as a non violent law abiding citizen, would probably do grievous harm to anyone who physically hurt my wife, kids or grand kids, despite the price I might have to pay.

    We are all just people, with different cultural values to be appreciated and celebrated, but the same emotions simmer beneath the surface. This is not just feel good pablum, but a necessity if the human race is to progress. Sadly it won’t happen in our lifetimes, but we all can take small steps.

  196. Bob,
    I know it well and its’ one of my Dead favorites, which include Sugar Magnolia, Ripple, Box of Rain and He’s Gone. The last being the best eulogy for a person I know of.

    Rafflaw,
    You’re in the ballpark as we all are. The society of the time saw us as outlaws and the identification with the Western myth was a natural outgrowth.

  197. FFLEO,
    My apologies for getting too heavy and pontifical. Part of the reason is I love The West, having traveled it extensively in my Hippie/On The Road days. There I was in jeans with metal stars down the sides, Mexican Wedding Shirts open almost to my navel, dirty blond hair down to my shoulders and a full parti-colored beard. In the West, including Utah, no one ever treated me with anything but courtesy and friendliness. I was even stopped one for speeding at 3am on a North Dakota highway by a trooper. My speedometer was broken so he showed me the radar reading in his car, which was 96. Scared the hell out of me but he was a complete gentleman, didn’t bother to search my car and let me drive on with a $15 ticket the payment to be mailed in.

    Other times in a bar in a small farming town in Wyoming where the local KFC was the only other restaurant. I walked in alone amidst local farmers in baseball caps and overalls. All was very cool, we wound up arguing about football and baseball in a decidedly friendly way and bought each other drinks. We were all just people.

    Now in truth, having seen Easy Rider, I avoided the South, Texas and Oklahoma. It might not have been as friendly in small towns. Since then though I live in the South and have traveled it. People are just people everywhere.

  198. Ry Cooder can play anything. ANYTHING. From bolero to ballad to heavy metal. When you look up “versatile guitarist” in the Wiki, it should have his picture.

  199. Buddha,
    You are so right. Many years ago after my first infarction I lay in the hospital, a depressed/scared 37 year old. On my cassette recorder I constantly played his “Jesus Is On The Mainline…Tell Him What You Want” and while I wasn’t converted his voice and guitar licks brought me great cheer and helped me visualize healing.

  200. I’ve been reviewing shadow’s postings, finding a moving target.

    First he said “I do defend the Constitutional requirement however that the President must be 35, lived here 14 years, and be born in the United States as a natural born citizen.”
    March 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Then he said “You need two citizens as parents to be naturally born if not born in the United States.”
    March 1, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Then it was “Immigration law at the time of Barack Obama’s birth (Aug 4 1961) was that a child born to only one American parent needed to live in the United States for 5 years past the age of 14 to transmit this status. S.A. Dunham was not 19 when she had Obama, she was 18. This law is the applicable law in this case.”
    March 1, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    “Also, Vince, read the immigration law. I’m astounded you still don’t get it. IT IS IMMIGRATION LAW –> did you read that? IMMIGRATION LAW. Go read it. You can’t transmit automatic (natural born status) to progeny in 1961 as a single parent whose father is not also American — UNLESS you have lived 5 years in the US after age 14. Clear cut. Definitive.”
    March 2, 2009 at 10:58 am

    As everyone can see, he first said a President had to be born in the U.S. Then he dropped back, and said two citizen parents were needed if the President was not born in the U.S. Then he said if one parent was a citizen, she had to live five years past age 14.

    I have searched this out and found that there is one unstated assumption in the last two postings. There was an immigration law in effect in 1961, but it was only applicable to births outside the U.S., not to births inside the U.S., as implied in the above quotes. That law required five years of physical presence in the U.S. after age 14 by the American citizen parent of a foreign birth. So the statements about five years past age 14 apply only to births outside the country, and have no application at all to births within the United States.

    There is a lot of discussion about this at the web. There are numerous emails and postings (including the one wrongly attributed to Sowell) that claim that Obama cannot be natural born, even if he was born in the U.S., because of this law or other laws similar to it. Check the Volokh Conspiracy for Law Professor Eugene Volokh’s take on this.

    Shadow’s quoted postings did not mention births outside the United States, and thus implied that the rule applied even to births inside the country when only on parent was a citizen. It has taken some time to wade through this confusion.

    In section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b)), the statute provided:
    Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    ***
    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

    Since this is a legal site, I have inflicted the full statutory language and the full citation on all of you, whether you like it or not, and here are the links:

    http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=44

    Full text of 301 of 1952

    This is my effort to make some sense of the incoherent postings above.

    None of this is applicable to Obama. It is purely hypothetical. He was born in Hawaii, the 50th State of the United States, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at that time. He therefore was a national and citizen of the United States at birth under the laws that applied then and now.

    The conspiracy theorists seem to think that his mother traveled to Kenya, gave birth there, and then jetted back to Hawaii, where she or her relatives falsely claimed the baby had been born in Honolulu. They faked a birth announcement in the local paper (even though it appears that the papers in those days took their information only from hospitals, not from individuals). But theorists have offered only speculation, and not a shred of credible evidence, for such inherently implausible activities by a pair of impoverished college students in 1961. Theorists have also claimed that a woman said she saw Barack Obama born in Kenya, but it appears that she was confused by the question and was talking through an interpreter about his father, Barack Sr.

  201. Shadow also repeated his statement that “people can get birth certificates in Hawaii not being born there.” March 2, 2009 at 10:58 am

    A poster at another site called the Department of Health in Hawaii and was told “that in cases of a child born overseas to American parents, under that often-cited 1982 law, they will issue a ‘certificate of foreign birth.’ The state would NOT falsify the facts to certify birth in Honolulu, as it states on Obama’s document. So if you accept that the Certification of Live Birth is valid (and I do), you have to accept that he was born in Honolulu. There was no way to get a certificate like that otherwise.” See post by “Roselani” at Dec. 15, 1:00 PM.

    The poster added that “I’ve checked out the ‘evidence’ myself, at the source, and you can’t, in fact, transform a foreign birth into a local one on a state document.” Dec 15, 11:53 PM

    These are at the conservative site American Thinker in the comments to an article by Randall Hoven; click on “comments” and scroll down.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/natural_born_pickle.html

    This just confirms what I have been saying all along. The records of the Department of Health show that Obama was born in Hawaii. If those underlying records had showed otherwise, the Department would have had to issue a certificate of foreign birth showing birth in Kenya or wherever else it took place.

    Such a certificate of foreign birth, issued by a state agency, might be very helpful to adopted or immigrant children and adults, since they could show the same kind of official document for drivers licenses that everyone else shows, and the issuing officers would be familiar with it.

    The officials in Hawaii have certified that the Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is valid and authentic. If it is revealed that the underlying records show otherwise, I suspect that they would lose their jobs and careers and face criminal charges. I seriously doubt that they would do so as long as those records exist.

    So much for the urban myth that Hawaii issues fictitious birth certificates to foreigners.

  202. Yeah, Ballad of High Noon, or Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling, one of my all-time faves, had a sublime rhyme, unique in the annals of English language poetry:

    “He made a vow while in state’s prison
    That it would be my life or his’n.”

  203. Vince,
    Your work on debunking this is superb and I’m saving all of your comments on my hard drive for future use. You beautifully exposed shady’s moving target strategy. He was slightly more adept than the usual troll, but far below the standards you set and expanded. Thank you for the learning experience.

    Gnome,
    Good catch.

  204. Great digging, Vince. Of course, by tomorrow someone else will pop up and start all over again. It appears that dealing with trolls on this site is a lot like whack-a-mole.

  205. Thanks for the link, Buddha. Conservatives are constantly whining about “frivolous law suits.” It’s about time that they were reminded what the phrase means. I hope more judges will use the rules and their inherent authority to slap sanctions on lawyers and plaintiffs who insist on pursuing this nonsense.

  206. Buddha:

    Great article. Here’s my favorite part:

    “Robertson ordered plaintiff’s attorney John Hemenway of Colorado Springs, Colo., to show why he hasn’t violated court rules barring frivolous and harassing cases and shouldn’t have to pay Obama’s attorney, Bob Bauer, for his time arguing that the case should be thrown out.”

  207. Clean PC…

    I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Outstanding work!…

  208. Hi there.
    Would you mind if I share your blog with my
    myspace group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Many thanks

Comments are closed.